Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

The comments you made about working with staff and the answers given to Chuck's 
comments.

Did I read that wrong?

Stéphane

Le 15 nov. 2010 à 11:38, Rafik Dammak a écrit :

> Hi Stephane,
> 
> what suggestions? 
> 
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> 2010/11/15 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Rafik,
> 
> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm confused as well. Are these 
> suggestions from the working group, or from Avri and yourself?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 10:57, Rafik Dammak a écrit :
> 
>> Hi Chuck,
>> 
>> maybe we need to make it more simple, my understanding is :
>> -  Working with staff about base fee components and rationales behind them 
>> - and then Working on recommendations for cost-recovery of  those fees 
>> waivers
>> I tend to agree with Avri about addition and no replacement, I assume that 
>> WG members are willing to do additional task if needed.
>> 
>> does it make more sense?
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 
>> 2010/11/15 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> I'm confused Avri. (Nothing new!) Please see below.
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
>> > Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:51 AM
>> > To: Gomes, Chuck
>> > Cc: rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx; William Drake; evan@xxxxxxxxx; carlos
>> > aguirre
>> > Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
>> >
>> > Hi Chuck,
>> >
>> > Again off list as per my posting rights.  Feel free to forward it, if
>> > that is seen as an appropriate thing to do.  And please forgive me for
>> > answering a question asked of Rafik.  Jumping in where I don't belong
>> > is a bad habit I have not conquered yet.
>> >
>> > There are two different questions here.
>> >
>> > 1.  In the recommendations we have made already, there are recommended
>> > fee reductions based on the notion that various fees, like program
>> > development  costs for a program they are currently excluded from, are
>> > not appropriate fees to charge applicants from developing countries.
>> > While staff and the Board have indicated that these recommendations
>> are
>> > non starters, the WG has continued in recommending them, and we await
>> > comments on the proposal to do so.  Your suggestion for work items
>> that
>> > would look into the basis on which these fee reductions might be made,
>> > as you laid out in your message, is a work item that was neither in
>> our
>> > previous charter, nor is it currently in the charter the JAS WG is
>> > proposing the the GNSO council and to the ALAC.  That is why in my
>> > previous message I indicated that perhaps this is a work item you wish
>> > to add.   Specifically:
>> >
>> > > Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how
>> > the fee waivers would be funded."
>> >
>> > Of course it is not for me to say, but I would not see why adding this
>> > work item might not be considered friendly.
>> [Gomes, Chuck] So you would consider my amendment friendly if you were
>> the one to decide?  Correct
>> 
>> >
>> > 2. One part of the fee that we did not have the ability to understand
>> > was the $100, 000 USD base fee.  I might note, that many people before
>> > us have had the same questions we had, so we are not alone in not
>> > understanding this fee. There are members in the group who believe
>> that
>> > some portion of this fee may also be inappropriate for developing
>> > economies, but as we do not understand the full basis of this fee, we
>> > cannot make recommendations in this regard.  The charter item:
>> >
>> > > "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."
>> >
>> > Is a work item that requires the JAS WG to work more closely with
>> staff
>> > to understand the components of this fee and to see whether any parts
>> > of that fee are inappropriate for applicants from developing
>> economies.
>> >
>> > So changing this charter item as you suggest, is something I do not
>> > understand and would not personally support, again not that that
>> > matters.
>> [Gomes, Chuck] Now you oppose my amendment.  What am I missing?
>> 
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > a.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 14 Nov 2010, at 14:05, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> 
>> 
> 
>