RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Opportunity for discussion will be provided Wolf.

 

Chuck

 

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:44 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; zahid@xxxxxxxxx; HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion

 

I've some questionmarks regarding the Resolved under 1. 

c) 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;

This task seems to be beyond the scope of this group since use of auction 
income - beyond cost coverage - could be discussed from different point of 
views, not just from a perspective of applicant support. So more "neutrality" 
is required for this part of the discussion.

 

I'd like to discuss this furtheron.

Wolf-Ulrich 

         

        
________________________________


        Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
        Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. November 2010 11:18
        An: zahid@xxxxxxxxx; HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen
        Betreff: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion

        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@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:43 PM
        To: HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

        Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

        Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:46:24 -0500

        To: <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>

        Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>; <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

        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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

         

________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

        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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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