RE: [council] Announcement from JAS working group

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rafik,

 

Here is my thinking on the second amendment:

·         Any waiving of fees will reduce the funds available for processing 
applications.

·         Because the fees were calculated to cover actual application 
processing costs and assuming that the calculations are accurate, there may be 
a shortfall of funds to cover application processing costs.

·         How will that shortfall be covered?

·         Keep in mind that there are no specifically designated funds budgeted 
in the regular ICANN budget for application processing.

·         In proposing the amendment there was no intention on my part to pass 
judgment on the motion itself; rather, it seemed to me that if there is a 
shortfall, we should find out whether that has an impact, and if so, have some 
idea how that impact will be mitigated.

·         All the amendment does is add another task for the JAS WG, asking the 
group to work with Staff to get information on the new gTLD budget implications 
if fees are waived and explore ways to mitigate those impacts, if any.

 

Does this help?

 

 

 

From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 2:42 AM
To: Council GNSO
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; William Drake
Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group

 

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.