Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

[Drake William <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

I would think it necessary for the JAS to be able to consider a basic framework 
for how any auction funds that are made available for applicant support could 
be managed.  Otherwise, the group's long journey through the woods ends by 
standing in front of the castle door without knocking.  At the same time, it is 
easy to understand Wolf-Ulrich's view that, "one can expect many interested 
community groups expressing their needs to share that profit where new 
applicants are one group of it,"  so how a foundation and auctions might work 
are larger issues that might better be dealt with through another mechanism.  

Wolf-Ulrich, is there a way to split the difference and make it crystal clear 
that we're mandating JAS to only look at how at how any auction funds could be 
managed, rather than implying that the JAS might do the broader work? E.g. 
"Establishing a general framework for the management of any funds that may be 
made available for applicant support through auctions conducted by a separate 
ICANN originated foundation" or similar?

Bill


On Dec 8, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************