<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
- To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
- From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:42:20 +0900
- Cc: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=gdSP1K7q7EH8b+r5WzO6xswls2Zzhh790bmLH27wjiM=; b=H/vaIhv9UvEKn8xT/JN6FcUsMCGWuZuu78kPN0+G/r23cN0RM3EhVxxgZ26dCtV96G 2yCFblFUAru2Tj+GnzxlGDCoqTOjEzsclT9PW10BocLhTbkfY1m6X0ouGALgwVdhqitn MJ8VBsQ/lgd2eyJOVQA4dHL31UWpbdumkZMp8=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=DMtpScsttKA+zxsgH+38eg/3KzYSc+WHv0kJ6xxXn8XYB8AGTCguz4TE78AirWitr/ +jGDkkx0toojwj1TnLHDE6q4kcaYhndoES1l0oERubAqCnZJyufvSY70RtKRsgAQ94V4 WmovMgTfnkCoot0mM4hBq6QPgzTAs05ZLI2Qg=
- In-reply-to: <2406C5A9-E988-4913-A3A8-30CF72AB0D0B@indom.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <592F47825989E0468B5D719E571C6AEE02EBD5E3@s4de8dsaanr.west.t-com.de> <2406C5A9-E988-4913-A3A8-30CF72AB0D0B@indom.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Stephane,
unfortunately, I cannot consider the amendment to remove 1.c as friendly
amendment.
Regards
Rafik
2010/12/8 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
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|