[council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

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

Rafik, Bill, I am unsure if you answered this or not so I apologize if this is 
a repost.

Did you consider this as a FA?

Thanks,

Stéphane

>> 
>> Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 12:41
>> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
>> 
>> Rafik/Bill,
>> Do you consider this amendment friendly?
>> Chuck
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:08 AM
>> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
>> 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 priority on 
>> 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
>