RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it is dangerous to assume any use of auction funds when you have no 
idea that there will even be any or that there will be enough to be utilized in 
this manner.

If this is your only source of funding then I think you may want to widen the 
circle.

Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Drake William
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 3:17 AM
To: Rafik Dammak; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

Hi

I would think it necessary for the JAS to be able to consider a basic framework 
for how any auction funds that are made available for applicant support could 
be managed.  Otherwise, the group's long journey through the woods ends by 
standing in front of the castle door without knocking.  At the same time, it is 
easy to understand Wolf-Ulrich's view that, "one can expect many interested 
community groups expressing their needs to share that profit where new 
applicants are one group of it,"  so how a foundation and auctions might work 
are larger issues that might better be dealt with through another mechanism.

Wolf-Ulrich, is there a way to split the difference and make it crystal clear 
that we're mandating JAS to only look at how at how any auction funds could be 
managed, rather than implying that the JAS might do the broader work? E.g. 
"Establishing a general framework for the management of any funds that may be 
made available for applicant support through auctions conducted by a separate 
ICANN originated foundation" or similar?

Bill


On Dec 8, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:


Hi Stephane,

unfortunately, I cannot consider the amendment to remove 1.c as friendly 
amendment.

Regards

Rafik


2010/12/8 Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Rafik, Bill, I am unsure if you answered this or not so I apologize if this is 
a repost.

Did you consider this as a FA?

Thanks,

Stéphane



________________________________
Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 12:41
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
Rafik/Bill,
Do you consider this amendment friendly?
Chuck
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On 
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:08 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
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




***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************