RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Will we get a chance to discuss this prior to the Public Meeting on Wednesday?

Is there an opportunity over the next two days to discuss any current motions?

Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:21 AM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

Hello,

we may offer other rewording that respond to Wolf-Ulrich remarks:

"c) Establishing a framework for consideration by the chartering organizations 
and the community at large that deals with methods where by any moneys raised 
for the purposes of support of new gTLD applicants.  This framework could 
include  a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation.  
As the recommendations made by the Support for New gTLD Applicants  also 
include a proposed use for surplus auction income, beyond costs. for future 
rounds and ongoing assistance, this framework could include a proposal for 
disposition of these fund, realizing however, the the use of surplus auction 
funds is a wider community topic and may include other proposals for the use of 
such funds."

what do you think?

Regards

Rafik


2010/12/2 <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>

All,

I'd like to amend the "Motion for JAS WG charter extension" as follows:

Remove "Resolved 1. c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) 
including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, 
for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing 
assistance;"

Rationale:

First, I'm convinced the community and ICANN have to be prepared how to manage 
any potential new gTLD auction profit.
As usual in case profit is available one can expect many interested community 
groups expressing their needs to share that profit where new applicants are one 
group of it. In addition parts of the overall ICANN program could also profit 
from that fund (e.g. outreach program, DNS security etc.).

So my reservations to this topic being covered by the JAS group only are:
- it is a too large area for the JAS and would go far beyond their originally 
intended scope
- there are lots of more urgent tasks for this WG as laid down in the new draft 
charter. Handling the potential auction profit is of lower priority on the 
timescale .
- as per definition the JAS view is applicant oriented that would cause an 
imbalance

As I pointed out in former e-mails the JAS could express the new applicants' 
general interest in taking part in the distribution of the potential auction 
profit.

I suggest to initiate discussion on council level how to cover this topic 
separately and appropriately.

I'm in agreement with all other items in the charter and would be happy if the 
amendment could be accepted as friendly .
Save travels to Cartagena

Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________
Von: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2010 20:58
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: regarding your amendment
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

regarding your comment last time about JAS motion, I would like to know what 
are the reasons for asking to remove the 1.c . I think that we should find a 
better and constructive compromise.what do you think?

Regards

Rafik