<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
WG: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
- To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: WG: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
- From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:27:16 +0100
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcuEy372BCMqi/A+RYy0vVM05qXFKAABkkRQAAHuxeA=
- Thread-topic: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
Thanks both Avri and Rafik for bringing more light to the process.
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak
Gesendet: Montag, 15. November 2010 14:39
An: Council GNSO
Betreff: Fwd: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
Hi,
I am forwarding Avri response to Wolf.
I want to add that we discussed about the need of motion and
its process in the WG and the need to contact the chartering organizations
either in confcalls or group mailing list.
I want to thank Wolf for his interest to follow the WG in
regard last confcall and also for trusting us.
I am glad for the increasing interest on JAS WG report&further
work, I hoped that I had more questions and feedback last time when I made
updates during GNSO council confcall.
Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: 2010/11/15
Subject: Re: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
To: Wolf Knoben <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Rafik
Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
evan@xxxxxxxxx, carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Wolf-Ulrich
Once again removed the council list as I have no posting
rights. Feel free to forward if you believe it is appropriate.
While the motion itself was only discussed briefly at the last
call, the points in it were discussed at greater length when they were put in
the report as Next Steps. So the issue in the call, was whether the rewording
of the motion from Next Steps of the report to motion language had changed the
meaning any.
There were not objections either in the call, or on the list.
cheers,
a.
On 15 Nov 2010, at 13:46, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rafik,
>
> besides parts of the content of the motion I'm also still
confused about the chartering process. As the council is supposed to "manage"
the process I expect the draft motion having been discussed in detail in
advance by the JAS-WG. I understand a similar approach to be taken by ALAC the
other WG partner.
> Following the recordings of the JAS-WG meeting on Nov 09 my
impression is that there might be a lack of WG discussion about the draft
charter presented. Taking my role as policy process "manager" seriously I
personally have a problem to deal with matters knitted in a hurry. But may be
I'm wrong, and you can dispel my doubts.
>
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
> Gesendet: Montag, 15. November 2010 12:16
> An: Rafik Dammak
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Betreff: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
>
> I'm sorry, I thought they were suggestions for going forward.
I got the wrong end of the stick ;)
>
> Thanks for explaining Rafik.
>
> Stéphane
>
> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 12:04, Rafik Dammak a écrit :
>
>> 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
>>>
|