Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

[Drake William <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi A,

On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

> 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.

sure. but "any funds that may be made available" does not assume that funds 
will indeed be made available.
>  
> If this is your only source of funding then I think you may want to widen the 
> circle.

undoubtedly, and not precluded by the suggested language.

cheers

bd
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 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>
> 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] 
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 12:41
> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; 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] On 
> Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:08 AM
> To: 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] 
> 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
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
> 
>  

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