RE: AW: [council] RE: Alternate Motion on JAS

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Here are the reasons in more detail as to why I cannot accept the amendments as 
friendly.  The provisions added are in italics, and my comments are in ALL CAPS 
below Wolf’s added provisions:


e) Discuss and propose methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by 
providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to 
qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational 
quality of the relationship.

THIS CONCEPT WAS COVERED ALREADY IN MY (E) WHICH STATES:  “e) Propose methods 
for applicants to seek out assistance  from other top-level domain consultants, 
translators, and technicians,  in the application for, and administration of, a 
new top-level domain)”.  THE RYSG AND RRSG DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS GROUP HAS 
THE EXPERTISE, KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE TO “MATCH SERVICES TO QUALIFIED 
APPLICANTS”, NOR IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS WORKING GROUP TO “BROKER THESE 
RELATIONSHIPS AND REVIEW THE OPERATIONAL QUALITY OF THE RELATIONSHIP.”



f) Propose methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and 
assistance volunteered by third parties.

THIS IS SEEMINGLY COVERED BY MY PROPOSED (E) TO THE EXTENT IN SCOPE.

g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts propose policies and 
practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor 
agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial 
relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with 
funding

THIS AGAIN SEEMS TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THIS WORKING GROUP TO “ESTABLISH LINKS 
TO DONOR AGENCIES AND ASSISTING IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INITIAL RELATIONSHIPS.  
HOW IS THIS A POLICY ACTIVITY?

h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its 
full origin and to propose a percentage of that fee could be waived for 
applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new 
gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be 
accommodated.

ICANN HAS ALREADY PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL DOCUMENTATION AS TO WHERE THIS FEE HAS 
BEEN DERIVED AND SOLICITED COMMENTS THROUGH AT LEAST FIVE ROUNDS OF COMMENTS 
ALREADY ON THIS.  THE LAST SENTENCE “WORK WITH THE ICANN NEW GTLD 
IMPLEMENTATION TO DETERMINE HOW THE FEE WAIVERS WOULD BE ACCOMMODATED”.  THIS 
ALSO DOES NOT SEEM TO US TO BE A POLICY ISSUE AND THEREFORE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF 
THE GNSO.

i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain 
Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.

THIS LAST ONE IS STILL UNDER DISCUSSION WITH THE RYSG AND A FORM OF THIS WE 
(THE RYSG) COULD CONSIDER ADDING AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.  ALTHOUGH THE RYSG 
CERTAINLY IS NOT AGAINST ENCOURAGING THE BUILD OUT OF IDNS, THE QUESTION WAS 
WHETHER THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE ACTIVITY OF A GNSO-SPONSORED GROUP.  OTHERS IN 
THE RYSG FEEL LIKE THERE MAY BE SOME MIDDLE GROUND HERE AND WE ARE THEREFORE 
WORKING ON IT.

I hope that helps explain my thinking with respect to Wolf’s proposed 
amendments.

Thanks.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:30 AM
To: 'stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx'; 'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Alternate Motion on JAS

For the reasons I will more fully explain tonight in an e-mail (when I have a 
break) I cannot accept these as friendly.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:21 AM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Alternate Motion on JAS

Thank you Wolf.

Jeff, Adrian, do you accept this amendment as friendly?

Stéphane
Le 6 janv. 2011 à 08:15, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> a 
écrit :


Following the discussion on the list I'd like to propose an amendment to the 
Alternate Motion on JAS (see attached) and would be happy if you accept it as 
friendly.


Wolf-Ulrich
[WUK: ]

________________________________
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Januar 2011 00:45
An: Glen de Saint Géry; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: [council] RE: Alternate Motion on JAS

I second this motion.

Adrian Kinderis



From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Thursday, 6 January 2011 9:28 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] RE: Alternate Motion on JAS

Forwarding the attached motions in word format .doc, easier to open than .docx


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: mercredi 5 janvier 2011 21:51
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Alternate Motion on JAS

Forwarding the attached motion from Jeff Neuman:


From: owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 6:26 PM
To: gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-chairs@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-chairs] Alternate Motion on JAS

All,

I am going on vacation, but I want to make sure that I do not miss the deadline 
to introduce motions for the January 13th Meeting.  So I would like to 
introduce this Motion as a completely new alternate motion.  Can I ask as a 
favor that unless you hear otherwise, can you please post this by the motion 
deadline?  I have attached a redlined version of my motion to the version 
proposed by Rafik for those on the Council that want to see what was done.

Thanks!

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

<JAS MOTION CLEAN_WUKamend.doc>