[council] JAS amendment

[Drake William <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

W-U

Would this work for you

c) Establishing a general framework for the management of any funds that may be 
made available for applicant support through auctions [or other sources].

So again, not saying anything about the JAS managing/envisioning either a) a 
foundation or b) the disposition of auction funds generally.  Just IF funds are 
made available through auctions.

On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Drake William wrote:

> 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
>>> 
>>