Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

we may offer other rewording that respond to Wolf-Ulrich remarks:

"c) Establishing a framework for consideration by the chartering
organizations and the community at large that deals with methods where by
any moneys raised for the purposes of support of new gTLD applicants.  This
framework could include  a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN
originated foundation.  As the recommendations made by the Support for New
gTLD Applicants  also include a proposed use for surplus auction income,
beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance, this framework could
include a proposal for disposition of these fund, realizing however, the the
use of surplus auction funds is a wider community topic and may include
other proposals for the use of such funds."

what do you think?

Regards

Rafik



2010/12/2 <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>

>
>  All,
>
> I'd like to amend the "Motion for JAS WG charter extension" as follows:
>
> Remove "Resolved 1. c) Establishing a framework (for consideration
> etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN
> originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for
> future rounds and ongoing assistance;"
>
> Rationale:
>
> First, I'm convinced the community and ICANN have to be prepared how to
> manage any potential new gTLD auction profit.
> As usual in case profit is available one can expect many interested
> community groups expressing their needs to share that profit where new
> applicants are one group of it. In addition parts of the overall ICANN
> program could also profit from that fund (e.g. outreach program, DNS
> security etc.).
>
> So my reservations to this topic being covered by the JAS group only are:
> - it is a too large area for the JAS and would go far beyond their
> originally intended scope
> - there are lots of more urgent tasks for this WG as laid down in the new
> draft charter. Handling the potential auction profit is of lower priorityon 
> the timescale
> .
> - as per definition the JAS view is applicant oriented that would cause an
> imbalance
>
> As I pointed out in former e-mails the JAS could express the new
> applicants' general interest in taking part in the distribution of the
> potential auction profit.
>
> I suggest to initiate discussion on council level how to cover this topic
> separately and appropriately.
>
> I'm in agreement with all other items in the charter and would be happy
> if the amendment could be accepted as friendly .
>
> Save travels to Cartagena
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *Von:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2010 20:58
> *An:* Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
> *Betreff:* regarding your amendment
>
>  Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
>
> regarding your comment last time about JAS motion, I would like to know
> what are the reasons for asking to remove the 1.c . I think that we should
> find a better and constructive compromise.what do you think?
>
> Regards
>
> Rafik
>
>