Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wow.
>
>
>
> This is some motion. Interesting that it is slipped in during all the
> commotion of VI etc.
>

no comment,


>
>
> I am still at a bit of a loss to understand this.
>
>
>
> You are now reaching out to Registry Back end Service providers and
> assuming that ICANN play a role in supporting the payment of their services?
> Where does this end?
>
>
Registry back and service providers can participate VOLUNTARY and if they
are really willing  to assist needy applicants from developing regions.
The extensions for the charter are  to deal with fund raising
and organizing not about ICANN giving financial assistance or even reducing
fees.

>
>
> I would love, personally, to have a license for mobile spectrum in
> Australia. I cannot afford it, therefore I don’t. My bad luck. I am not sure
> this is too much different. I am not sure why support needs to be granted on
> any level here.
>
>
>

if you are worried about application fees, I advice you to read again the
last two ICANN board resolution about assisting applicants.


> Originally, I agreed because we were discussing the supporting the
> development of the application itself. Some folks may have troubles in doing
> so (especially non English speakers etc). It seems to now be stretching much
> much further than this.
>
>
>
I have yet to speak to my Stakeholder group on this topic but I assume we
> wouldn’t be supportive of this motion.
>
>
> the final report will be available soon (sorry another reading in addition
to the waited AGB)

Rafik