Fwd: [council] Announcement from JAS working group

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

Councillors,

As Avri does not have posting privileges to the Council list, please find below 
her response to my earlier question.

Stéphane

Début du message réexpédié :

> De : Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date : 15 novembre 2010 12:09:22 HNEC
> À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc : Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>, Chuck Gomes 
> <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> evan@xxxxxxxxx
> Objet : Rép : [council] Announcement from JAS working group
> 
> Dear Stéphane,
> 
> Again removed the council from the cc list due to my lack of posting 
> privileges.
> 
> The comments I made are, I believe, in keeping with the consensus already 
> reached by the WG.  Certainly the group was very committed to the need to 
> investigate the basis of the 100 KUSD base charge and I suspect would be very 
> disturbed to see it removed from the charter.  Also the group has never 
> shirked any task that was chartered by the chartering organizations, and thus 
> my feeling that they would not reject an additional work item.
> 
> However, we had already scheduled a meeting for tomorrow where the agenda 
> includes reviewing any issue that have come up in the GNSO council relating 
> to our report or the motion. Chuck's issues will be reviewed.
> 
> So rest assured, the will of the JAS working Group has been and will 
> continued to be taken into account.
> 
> Your humble servant,
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 Nov 2010, at 11:58, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>