<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
Hi,
I summarized the discussed points to clarify them, I thought that I made
them more clear for you :)
Rafik
2010/11/15 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.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|