Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck,

we discussed in the WG call today about the amendment and we have this
rewording:
"Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee
waivers would be accommodated"
what do you think?

Regards

Rafik



2010/11/16 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  Thanks Rafik.  I am not stuck to my wording so please feel free to reword
> the amendment.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 15, 2010 4:57 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Avri Doria; William Drake; evan@xxxxxxxxx; carlos aguirre; Council
> GNSO
>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
>
>
>
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>