WG: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group

KnobenW at telekom.de KnobenW at telekom.de
Mon Nov 15 15:27:16 UTC 2010


	Thanks both Avri and Rafik for bringing more light to the process.




		Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak
		Gesendet: Montag, 15. November 2010 14:39
		An: Council GNSO
		Betreff: Fwd: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group

		I am forwarding Avri response to Wolf.
		I want to add that we discussed about the need of  motion and its process  in the WG and  the need to contact the chartering organizations either in confcalls or group mailing list.
		I want to thank Wolf for his interest to follow the WG in regard last confcall and also for trusting us. 
		I am glad for the increasing interest on JAS WG report&further work, I hoped that I had more questions and feedback  last time when I made updates during GNSO council confcall.

		---------- Forwarded message ----------
		From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
		Date: 2010/11/15
		Subject: Re: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
		To: Wolf Knoben <KnobenW at telekom.de>
		Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>, evan at telly.org, carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com>
		Dear Wolf-Ulrich
		Once again removed the council list as I have no posting rights.  Feel free to forward if you believe it is appropriate.
		While the motion itself was only discussed briefly at the last call, the points in it were discussed at greater length when they were put in the report as Next Steps.  So the issue in the call, was whether the rewording of the motion from Next Steps of the report to motion language had changed the meaning any.
		There were not objections either in the call, or on the list.

		On 15 Nov 2010, at 13:46, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de> wrote:
		> Hi Rafik,
		> besides parts of the content of the motion I'm also still confused about the chartering process. As the council is supposed to "manage" the process I expect the draft motion having been discussed in detail in advance by the JAS-WG. I understand a similar approach to be taken by ALAC the other WG partner.
		> Following the recordings of the JAS-WG meeting on Nov 09 my impression is that there might be a lack of WG discussion about the draft charter presented. Taking my role as policy process "manager" seriously I personally have a problem to deal with matters knitted in a hurry. But may be I'm wrong, and you can dispel my doubts.
		> Best regards
		> Wolf-Ulrich
		> Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
		> Gesendet: Montag, 15. November 2010 12:16
		> An: Rafik Dammak
		> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
		> Betreff: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
		> I'm sorry, I thought they were suggestions for going forward. I got the wrong end of the stick ;)
		> Thanks for explaining Rafik.
		> Stéphane
		> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 12:04, Rafik Dammak a écrit :
		>> Hi,
		>> I summarized the discussed points to clarify them, I thought that I made them more clear for you :)
		>> Rafik
		>> 2010/11/15 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
		>> The comments you made about working with staff and the answers given to Chuck's comments.
		>> Did I read that wrong?
		>> Stéphane
		>> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 11:38, Rafik Dammak a écrit :
		>>> Hi Stephane,
		>>> what suggestions?
		>>> Rafik
		>>> 2010/11/15 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
		>>> Rafik,
		>>> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm confused as well. Are these suggestions from the working group, or from Avri and yourself?
		>>> Thanks,
		>>> Stéphane
		>>> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 10:57, Rafik Dammak a écrit :
		>>>> Hi Chuck,
		>>>> maybe we need to make it more simple, my understanding is :
		>>>> -  Working with staff about base fee components and rationales behind them
		>>>> - and then Working on recommendations for cost-recovery of  those fees waivers
		>>>> I tend to agree with Avri about addition and no replacement, I assume that WG members are willing to do additional task if needed.
		>>>> does it make more sense?
		>>>> Rafik
		>>>> 2010/11/15 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
		>>>> I'm confused Avri. (Nothing new!) Please see below.
		>>>> Chuck
		>>>>> -----Original Message-----
		>>>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
		>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:51 AM
		>>>>> To: Gomes, Chuck
		>>>>> Cc: rafik.dammak at gmail.com; William Drake; evan at telly.org; carlos
		>>>>> aguirre
		>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
		>>>>> Hi Chuck,
		>>>>> Again off list as per my posting rights.  Feel free to forward it, if
		>>>>> that is seen as an appropriate thing to do.  And please forgive me for
		>>>>> answering a question asked of Rafik.  Jumping in where I don't belong
		>>>>> is a bad habit I have not conquered yet.
		>>>>> There are two different questions here.
		>>>>> 1.  In the recommendations we have made already, there are recommended
		>>>>> fee reductions based on the notion that various fees, like program
		>>>>> development  costs for a program they are currently excluded from, are
		>>>>> not appropriate fees to charge applicants from developing countries.
		>>>>> While staff and the Board have indicated that these recommendations
		>>>> are
		>>>>> non starters, the WG has continued in recommending them, and we await
		>>>>> comments on the proposal to do so.  Your suggestion for work items
		>>>> that
		>>>>> would look into the basis on which these fee reductions might be made,
		>>>>> as you laid out in your message, is a work item that was neither in
		>>>> our
		>>>>> previous charter, nor is it currently in the charter the JAS WG is
		>>>>> proposing the the GNSO council and to the ALAC.  That is why in my
		>>>>> previous message I indicated that perhaps this is a work item you wish
		>>>>> to add.   Specifically:
		>>>>>> Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how
		>>>>> the fee waivers would be funded."
		>>>>> Of course it is not for me to say, but I would not see why adding this
		>>>>> work item might not be considered friendly.
		>>>> [Gomes, Chuck] So you would consider my amendment friendly if you were
		>>>> the one to decide?  Correct
		>>>>> 2. One part of the fee that we did not have the ability to understand
		>>>>> was the $100, 000 USD base fee.  I might note, that many people before
		>>>>> us have had the same questions we had, so we are not alone in not
		>>>>> understanding this fee. There are members in the group who believe
		>>>> that
		>>>>> some portion of this fee may also be inappropriate for developing
		>>>>> economies, but as we do not understand the full basis of this fee, we
		>>>>> cannot make recommendations in this regard.  The charter item:
		>>>>>> "Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to
		>>>> determine
		>>>>> its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be
		>>>>> waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance."
		>>>>> Is a work item that requires the JAS WG to work more closely with
		>>>> staff
		>>>>> to understand the components of this fee and to see whether any parts
		>>>>> of that fee are inappropriate for applicants from developing
		>>>> economies.
		>>>>> So changing this charter item as you suggest, is something I do not
		>>>>> understand and would not personally support, again not that that
		>>>>> matters.
		>>>> [Gomes, Chuck] Now you oppose my amendment.  What am I missing?
		>>>>> Best regards,
		>>>>> a.
		>>>>> On 14 Nov 2010, at 14:05, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
		>>>>>> Rafik,
		>>>>>> Here is my thinking on the second amendment:
		>>>>>> *         Any waiving of fees will reduce the funds available for
		>>>>> processing applications.
		>>>>>> *         Because the fees were calculated to cover actual
		>>>>> application processing costs and assuming that the calculations are
		>>>>> accurate, there may be a shortfall of funds to cover application
		>>>>> processing costs.
		>>>>>> *         How will that shortfall be covered?
		>>>>>> *         Keep in mind that there are no specifically designated
		>>>>> funds budgeted in the regular ICANN budget for application processing.
		>>>>>> *         In proposing the amendment there was no intention on my
		>>>>> part to pass judgment on the motion itself; rather, it seemed to me
		>>>>> that if there is a shortfall, we should find out whether that has an
		>>>>> impact, and if so, have some idea how that impact will be mitigated.
		>>>>>> *         All the amendment does is add another task for the JAS WG,
		>>>>> asking the group to work with Staff to get information on the new gTLD
		>>>>> budget implications if fees are waived and explore ways to mitigate
		>>>>> those impacts, if any.
		>>>>>> Does this help?
		>>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
		>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 2:42 AM
		>>>>>> To: Council GNSO
		>>>>>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; William Drake
		>>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
		>>>>>> Hello,
		>>>>>> I am forwarding Avri's answers to Chuck's questions which are below.
		>>>>>> For the first amendment, I accept the first one as friendly.
		>>>>>> about the second ones, I am not understanding the aim, maybe other
		>>>>> rewording can work?
		>>>>>> Regards
		>>>>>> Rafik
		>>>>>> 2010/11/13 Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
		>>>>>> Dear Chuck,
		>>>>>> Some initial answers from my perspective as one of the co-chairs.
		>>>>>> Of course I do not have Council list posting rights, and am not even
		>>>>> sure whether Rafik and Bill  would want my raw answers passed on raw.
		>>>>>> A reminder, as a Joint AC/SO WG this motion is also being put before
		>>>>> ALAC. Any changes etc  will eventually need to be ironed out between
		>>>>> the two groups.
		>>>>>> My comments in-line.
		>>>>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 09:39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
		>>>>>>> In advance of our consideration of this motion I want to propose a
		>>>>> couple amendments (re just a typo) and ask a few questions that
		>>>>> hopefully can be answered on the list before our meeting on the 18th.
		>>>>>>> Resolved 1(a)
		>>>>>>> *         The second sentence of this part of the resolution says,
		>>>>> "Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for
		>>>>> support. The group should be argumented to have the necessary
		>>>> expertise
		>>>>> to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the
		>>>>> comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this
		>>>>> requirement."
		>>>>>>> *         Proposed amendment (typo correction):  In 1(a) under
		>>>>> Resolved, change 'argumented' to 'augmented'.
		>>>>>> Yes, Thank you for catching that.
		>>>>>>> *         Have the experts needed been identified yet?  If not,
		>>>> how
		>>>>> will they be identified?
		>>>>>> No. There have been some background conversations with Staff about
		>>>>> this and there was an offer of help in terms of bringing in some
		>>>>> visitors to the group to discuss various issues.  Discussing the type
		>>>>> of expertise needed would be an initial item for the WG.
		>>>>>>> *         Is it anticipated that adding experts will require
		>>>>> funding?  If so, from where would the funding come?
		>>>>>> It has not been anticipated that there will be an expense.  But if
		>>>>> there is, we do not have any idea of where funding would come from.
		>>>>> Perhaps Karla can let us know if there is any funding in the new
		>>>> budget
		>>>>> for such support if needed.
		>>>>>> It is also possible that there are volunteers either within the
		>>>> ICANN
		>>>>> community or outside of it who could be brought in without expenses. I
		>>>>> tend to look at this whole process of trying to get help for
		>>>> applicants
		>>>>> from developing regions as pro-bono work.  If the charter extensions
		>>>>> are approved, I expect I will make an outreach to people I know, as I
		>>>>> expect others in the group would.
		>>>>>>> Resolved 1(c)
		>>>>>>> *         The resolution says, "Establishing a framework,
		>>>> including
		>>>>> a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation,
		>>>>> for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and
		>>>>> ongoing assistance".
		>>>>>>> *         What does 'ICANN originated foundation' mean?
		>>>>>> The specifics are far from clear and hence the work item.  There has
		>>>>> been a conversation for a long while, including the days of GNSO
		>>>> policy
		>>>>> making and in some of the DAG discussions,  that processing any funds
		>>>>> gained in auctions beyond  costs might be best dealt with outside of
		>>>>> normal ICANN budgeting and accounting.    This item recommends that we
		>>>>> start working on those idea, including the idea of an independent
		>>>>> foundation set up by ICANN for just this purpose.  Of course we are
		>>>>> also looking for funds beyond just auction proceeds, but the source of
		>>>>> those funds is as of yet unclear, and hence a work item.
		>>>>>>> *         Has this idea been vetted with the ICANN General
		>>>>> Council's office?
		>>>>>> Not that I know of.  Does looking into this need to be vetted with
		>>>>> them?  Certainly they would need to be part of any discussions and
		>>>>> planning, and of course execution if such were ultimately recommended
		>>>>> and approved, but do GNSO and ALAC need their permission to talk about
		>>>>> it?  This is not consensus policy that affects contractual conditions.
		>>>>> All the JAS WG can do is make recommendation to our chartering
		>>>>> organizations, the community and the Board.
		>>>>>>> Resolved 1(h)
		>>>>>>> *         The resolution says, "Review the basis of the US$100,000
		>>>>> application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine
		>>>> what
		>>>>> percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the
		>>>>> requirements for assistance."
		>>>>>>> *         Understanding that the application fees are intended to
		>>>>> cover application processing costs and no more, from where is it
		>>>>> envisioned that the offset of the fee waivers would come?
		>>>>>> This was discussed in the recommendations themselves.  The
		>>>> suggestion
		>>>>> is in keeping with the GNSO policy decision that while the program
		>>>>> needs to be self funding as a whole, there can be differential fees
		>>>>> paid by the applicants.
		>>>>>> For each of the fees that the JAS WG has recommended being waived
		>>>> for
		>>>>> applicants who meet the criteria, there is a reason for why that fee
		>>>>> would not be appropriate for someone from a developing region to have
		>>>>> to pay.
		>>>>>> In terms of this US$100,000 fee,  however,that basis of that fee was
		>>>>> not clear and hence the need to investigate the basis of that fee
		>>>>> further to see if any parts of it are not appropriate for those from
		>>>>> developing regions.
		>>>>>>> *         Proposed amendment: Add a new sentence that says, "Work
		>>>>> with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee
		>>>>> waivers would be funded."
		>>>>>> I would not think this an equivalent item.
		>>>>>> This could be another work item, however..
		>>>>>>> If the answers to the questions can be provided in advance of the
		>>>>> Council meeting on 18 November, I think the chances of acting on this
		>>>>> motion on the 18th will be increased and the sooner the better so that
		>>>>> Councilors can provide the answers to their respective groups.
		>>>>>>> Rafik/Bill:  Do you consider the two proposed amendments as
		>>>>> friendly?
		>>>>>>> Chuck
		>>>>>> Thanks
		>>>>>> a.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101115/1358a24d/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list