[council] JAS WG charter extension motion

[William Drake]

Hi Chuck

As I understand things, Rafik was introducing the motion on behalf of the JAS, and when he sent Debbie's proposed amendment to the JAS list you and Tijani expressed concern that it might go beyond the charter.  Therefore he informed Debbie that he did not have JAS consensus to view it as friendly.  

Cheers,

Bill

On Nov 18, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Thanks Debbie for proposing this amendment and Zahid for your expressed support. 
>  
> Rafik and Bill – Do you support it as a friendly amendment?
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid at dndrc.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:43 PM
> To: HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org; Glen; Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion
>  
> I would also support this amendment.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Zahid Jamil
> Barrister-at-law
> Jamil & Jamil
> Barristers-at-law
> 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
> Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
> Cell: +923008238230
> Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
> Fax: +92 21 5655026
> www.jamilandjamil.com
> 
> 
> *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
> 
> From: <HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>
> Sender: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:46:24 -0500
> To: <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>; <Glen at icann.org>; <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Subject: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion
>  
> Rafik,
> I definitely support the work of the JAS working group and submitted comments to that effect when the initial report was published.  Thanks for your efforts and those of the WG!
> I was wondering if you would consider a friendly amendment to your Motion for JAS WG charter extension.  I would like to add the concept of bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts in small or underserved languages, at discounted fees.
> Rationale:  For example, a multinational organization could consider multiple IDN scripts (like Arabic or Korean) to connect with a community in their native language.  At $185,000 per application, that becomes very cost prohibitive, especially for a NGOs that may want to use the string to deliver services and not monetize the string for profits.     
> In my reading of the report, it seems the WG considered bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts at discounted fees.  (See “Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts” Item 2.2.1)
> So, would you consider a friendly amendment adding the following objective to the list provided in the Motion?
> “Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.”
> Thanks,
> Debbie
> Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel 
> American Red Cross
> 
> Office of the General Counsel  
> 2025 E Street, NW 
> Washington, D.C. 20006 
> Phone: (202) 303-5356 
> Fax: (202) 303-0143 
> HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM
> To: Adrian Kinderis
> Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion
>  
> Hi Adrian,
>  
> thank you for your interest,
> for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support.
>  
> 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment).  We will work on topic of  external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants.  
> 2- yes, we didn't state  exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from  various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work  to figure out how this could best be done.
> 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done
>  
> as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines)
>  
> Regards
>  
> Rafik
>  
> 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian at ausregistry.com.au>
> Rafik,
>  
> I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG.
>  
> It is all good work that is deserved of our attention.
>  
> However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants.
>  
> Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG’s for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it;
>  
> - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties?
> - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and ‘standard’ ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated?
> - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language
>  
> Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks.
>  
>  
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM
> To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion
>  
> 
> Hello,
>  
> I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items.
>  
> Regards
>  
> Rafik
>  
>  
>  
>  

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101118/a5901f19/attachment.html>