Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I am forwarding Avri's answers to Chuck's questions which are below.
For the first amendment, I accept the first one as friendly.
about the second ones, I am not understanding the aim, maybe other rewording
can work?

Regards

Rafik


2010/11/13 Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>

> Dear Chuck,
>
> Some initial answers from my perspective as one of the co-chairs.
>
> Of course I do not have Council list posting rights, and am not even sure
> whether Rafik and Bill  would want my raw answers passed on raw.
>
> A reminder, as a Joint AC/SO WG this motion is also being put before ALAC.
> Any changes etc  will eventually need to be ironed out between the two
> groups.
>
> My comments in-line.
>
>
> On 12 Nov 2010, at 09:39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > In advance of our consideration of this motion I want to propose a couple
> amendments (re just a typo) and ask a few questions that hopefully can be
> answered on the list before our meeting on the 18th.
> >
> > Resolved 1(a)
> > ·         The second sentence of this part of the resolution says,
> “Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support.
> The group should be argumented to have the necessary expertise to make a
> specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative
> economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.”
> > ·         Proposed amendment (typo correction):  In 1(a) under Resolved,
> change ‘argumented’ to ‘augmented’.
>
> Yes, Thank you for catching that.
>
> > ·         Have the experts needed been identified yet?  If not, how will
> they be identified?
>
> No. There have been some background conversations with Staff about this and
> there was an offer of help in terms of bringing in some visitors to the
> group to discuss various issues.  Discussing the type of expertise needed
> would be an initial item for the WG.
>
> > ·         Is it anticipated that adding experts will require funding?  If
> so, from where would the funding come?
>
> It has not been anticipated that there will be an expense.  But if there
> is, we do not have any idea of where funding would come from.  Perhaps Karla
> can let us know if there is any funding in the new budget for such support
> if needed.
>
> It is also possible that there are volunteers either within the ICANN
> community or outside of it who could be brought in without expenses. I tend
> to look at this whole process of trying to get help for applicants from
> developing regions as pro-bono work.  If the charter extensions are
> approved, I expect I will make an outreach to people I know, as I expect
> others in the group would.
>
> >
> > Resolved 1(c)
> > ·         The resolution says, “Establishing a framework, including a
> possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for
> managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing
> assistance”.
> > ·         What does ‘ICANN originated foundation’ mean?
>
> The specifics are far from clear and hence the work item.  There has been a
> conversation for a long while, including the days of GNSO policy making and
> in some of the DAG discussions,  that processing any funds gained in
> auctions beyond  costs might be best dealt with outside of normal ICANN
> budgeting and accounting.    This item recommends that we start working on
> those idea, including the idea of an independent foundation set up by ICANN
> for just this purpose.  Of course we are also looking for funds beyond just
> auction proceeds, but the source of those funds is as of yet unclear, and
> hence a work item.
>
> > ·         Has this idea been vetted with the ICANN General Council’s
> office?
>
> Not that I know of.  Does looking into this need to be vetted with them?
>  Certainly they would need to be part of any discussions and planning, and
> of course execution if such were ultimately recommended and approved, but do
> GNSO and ALAC need their permission to talk about it?  This is not consensus
> policy that affects contractual conditions.  All the JAS WG can do is make
> recommendation to our chartering organizations, the community and the Board.
>
>
> >
> > Resolved 1(h)
> > ·         The resolution says, “Review the basis of the US$100,000
> application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine what
> percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the
> requirements for assistance.”
> > ·         Understanding that the application fees are intended to cover
> application processing costs and no more, from where is it envisioned that
> the offset of the fee waivers would come?
>
> This was discussed in the recommendations themselves.  The suggestion is in
> keeping with the GNSO policy decision that while the program needs to be
> self funding as a whole, there can be differential fees paid by the
> applicants.
>
> For each of the fees that the JAS WG has recommended being waived for
> applicants who meet the criteria, there is a reason for why that fee would
> not be appropriate for someone from a developing region to have to pay.
>
> In terms of this US$100,000 fee,  however,that basis of that fee was not
> clear and hence the need to investigate the basis of that fee further to see
> if any parts of it are not appropriate for those from developing regions.
>
>
> > ·         Proposed amendment: Add a new sentence that says, “Work with
> the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers
> would be funded.”
>
> I would not think this an equivalent item.
>
> This could be another work item, however..
>
>
> >
> > If the answers to the questions can be provided in advance of the Council
> meeting on 18 November, I think the chances of acting on this motion on the
> 18th will be increased and the sooner the better so that Councilors can
> provide the answers to their respective groups.
> >
> > Rafik/Bill:  Do you consider the two proposed amendments as friendly?
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>
>