AW: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

To my understanding, we'll discuss this at 2:45 p.m., see agenda
 

Wolf-Ulrich 


________________________________

        Von: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Gesendet: Samstag, 4. Dezember 2010 17:27
        An: Rafik Dammak; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
        
        

        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>

         

        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] 
                        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