AW: [council] JAS amendment

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

That was my approach.
 
My only concern with your suggestion is duplication of work if other 
"interested" groups start working about.
Perhaps staff could check which groups/projects should potentially be covered 
(e.g. the outreach program). 
 

Wolf-Ulrich 


  _____  

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Drake William
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2010 15:15
An: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Cc: Rafik Dammak; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council List
Betreff: [council] JAS amendment


W-U 

Would this work for you

c) Establishing a general framework for the management of any funds that may be 
made available for applicant support through auctions [or other sources].

So again, not saying anything about the JAS managing/envisioning either a) a 
foundation or b) the disposition of auction funds generally.  Just IF funds are 
made available through auctions.

On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Drake William wrote:


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