I am fine with the following replacement to the second amendment of Rafik’s motion that I suggested.
Glen - please add this amendment to Rafik’s motion. It is considered a friendly amendment because Rafik and Bill both support it. I assume you already made the other friendly amendment (just a typo).
Chuck
From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:06 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Avri Doria; William Drake; evan(a)telly.org; carlos aguirre; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
Hi Chuck,
we discussed in the WG call today about the amendment and we have this rewording:
"Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be accommodated"
what do you think?
Regards
Rafik
2010/11/16 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com>
Thanks Rafik. I am not stuck to my wording so please feel free to reword the amendment.
Chuck
From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:57 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Avri Doria; William Drake; evan(a)telly.org; carlos aguirre; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
Hi Chuck,
maybe we need to make it more simple, my understanding is :
- Working with staff about base fee components and rationales behind them
- and then Working on recommendations for cost-recovery of those fees waivers
I tend to agree with Avri about addition and no replacement, I assume that WG members are willing to do additional task if needed.
does it make more sense?
Rafik
2010/11/15 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com>
I'm confused Avri. (Nothing new!) Please see below.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:51 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com; William Drake; evan(a)telly.org; carlos
> aguirre
> Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Again off list as per my posting rights. Feel free to forward it, if
> that is seen as an appropriate thing to do. And please forgive me for
> answering a question asked of Rafik. Jumping in where I don't belong
> is a bad habit I have not conquered yet.
>
> There are two different questions here.
>
> 1. In the recommendations we have made already, there are recommended
> fee reductions based on the notion that various fees, like program
> development costs for a program they are currently excluded from, are
> not appropriate fees to charge applicants from developing countries.
> While staff and the Board have indicated that these recommendations
are
> non starters, the WG has continued in recommending them, and we await
> comments on the proposal to do so. Your suggestion for work items
that
> would look into the basis on which these fee reductions might be made,
> as you laid out in your message, is a work item that was neither in
our
> previous charter, nor is it currently in the charter the JAS WG is
> proposing the the GNSO council and to the ALAC. That is why in my
> previous message I indicated that perhaps this is a work item you wish
> to add. Specifically:
>
> > Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how
> the fee waivers would be funded."
>
> Of course it is not for me to say, but I would not see why adding this
> work item might not be considered friendly.
[Gomes, Chuck] So you would consider my amendment friendly if you were
the one to decide? Correct
>
> 2. One part of the fee that we did not have the ability to understand
> was the $100, 000 USD base fee. I might note, that many people before
> us have had the same questions we had, so we are not alone in not
> understanding this fee. There are members in the group who believe
that
> some portion of this fee may also be inappropriate for developing
> economies, but as we do not understand the full basis of this fee, we
> cannot make recommendations in this regard. The charter item:
>
> > "Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to
determine
> its full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be
> waived for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance."
>
> Is a work item that requires the JAS WG to work more closely with
staff
> to understand the components of this fee and to see whether any parts
> of that fee are inappropriate for applicants from developing
economies.
>
> So changing this charter item as you suggest, is something I do not
> understand and would not personally support, again not that that
> matters.
[Gomes, Chuck] Now you oppose my amendment. What am I missing?
>
> Best regards,
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
> On 14 Nov 2010, at 14:05, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > Rafik,
> >
> > Here is my thinking on the second amendment:
> > * Any waiving of fees will reduce the funds available for
> processing applications.
> > * Because the fees were calculated to cover actual
> application processing costs and assuming that the calculations are
> accurate, there may be a shortfall of funds to cover application
> processing costs.
> > * How will that shortfall be covered?
> > * Keep in mind that there are no specifically designated
> funds budgeted in the regular ICANN budget for application processing.
> > * In proposing the amendment there was no intention on my
> part to pass judgment on the motion itself; rather, it seemed to me
> that if there is a shortfall, we should find out whether that has an
> impact, and if so, have some idea how that impact will be mitigated.
> > * All the amendment does is add another task for the JAS WG,
> asking the group to work with Staff to get information on the new gTLD
> budget implications if fees are waived and explore ways to mitigate
> those impacts, if any.
> >
> > Does this help?
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 2:42 AM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; William Drake
> > Subject: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am forwarding Avri's answers to Chuck's questions which are below.
> > For the first amendment, I accept the first one as friendly.
> > about the second ones, I am not understanding the aim, maybe other
> rewording can work?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2010/11/13 Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com>
> > Dear Chuck,
> >
> > Some initial answers from my perspective as one of the co-chairs.
> >
> > Of course I do not have Council list posting rights, and am not even
> sure whether Rafik and Bill would want my raw answers passed on raw.
> >
> > A reminder, as a Joint AC/SO WG this motion is also being put before
> ALAC. Any changes etc will eventually need to be ironed out between
> the two groups.
> >
> > My comments in-line.
> >
> >
> > On 12 Nov 2010, at 09:39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > > In advance of our consideration of this motion I want to propose a
> couple amendments (re just a typo) and ask a few questions that
> hopefully can be answered on the list before our meeting on the 18th.
> > >
> > > Resolved 1(a)
> > > * The second sentence of this part of the resolution says,
> "Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for
> support. The group should be argumented to have the necessary
expertise
> to make a specific recommendation in this area, especially given the
> comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this
> requirement."
> > > * Proposed amendment (typo correction): In 1(a) under
> Resolved, change 'argumented' to 'augmented'.
> >
> > Yes, Thank you for catching that.
> >
> > > * Have the experts needed been identified yet? If not,
how
> will they be identified?
> >
> > No. There have been some background conversations with Staff about
> this and there was an offer of help in terms of bringing in some
> visitors to the group to discuss various issues. Discussing the type
> of expertise needed would be an initial item for the WG.
> >
> > > * Is it anticipated that adding experts will require
> funding? If so, from where would the funding come?
> >
> > It has not been anticipated that there will be an expense. But if
> there is, we do not have any idea of where funding would come from.
> Perhaps Karla can let us know if there is any funding in the new
budget
> for such support if needed.
> >
> > It is also possible that there are volunteers either within the
ICANN
> community or outside of it who could be brought in without expenses. I
> tend to look at this whole process of trying to get help for
applicants
> from developing regions as pro-bono work. If the charter extensions
> are approved, I expect I will make an outreach to people I know, as I
> expect others in the group would.
> >
> > >
> > > Resolved 1(c)
> > > * The resolution says, "Establishing a framework,
including
> a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation,
> for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and
> ongoing assistance".
> > > * What does 'ICANN originated foundation' mean?
> >
> > The specifics are far from clear and hence the work item. There has
> been a conversation for a long while, including the days of GNSO
policy
> making and in some of the DAG discussions, that processing any funds
> gained in auctions beyond costs might be best dealt with outside of
> normal ICANN budgeting and accounting. This item recommends that we
> start working on those idea, including the idea of an independent
> foundation set up by ICANN for just this purpose. Of course we are
> also looking for funds beyond just auction proceeds, but the source of
> those funds is as of yet unclear, and hence a work item.
> >
> > > * Has this idea been vetted with the ICANN General
> Council's office?
> >
> > Not that I know of. Does looking into this need to be vetted with
> them? Certainly they would need to be part of any discussions and
> planning, and of course execution if such were ultimately recommended
> and approved, but do GNSO and ALAC need their permission to talk about
> it? This is not consensus policy that affects contractual conditions.
> All the JAS WG can do is make recommendation to our chartering
> organizations, the community and the Board.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Resolved 1(h)
> > > * The resolution says, "Review the basis of the US$100,000
> application base fee to determine its full origin and to determine
what
> percentage of that fee could be waived for applicants meeting the
> requirements for assistance."
> > > * Understanding that the application fees are intended to
> cover application processing costs and no more, from where is it
> envisioned that the offset of the fee waivers would come?
> >
> > This was discussed in the recommendations themselves. The
suggestion
> is in keeping with the GNSO policy decision that while the program
> needs to be self funding as a whole, there can be differential fees
> paid by the applicants.
> >
> > For each of the fees that the JAS WG has recommended being waived
for
> applicants who meet the criteria, there is a reason for why that fee
> would not be appropriate for someone from a developing region to have
> to pay.
> >
> > In terms of this US$100,000 fee, however,that basis of that fee was
> not clear and hence the need to investigate the basis of that fee
> further to see if any parts of it are not appropriate for those from
> developing regions.
> >
> >
> > > * Proposed amendment: Add a new sentence that says, "Work
> with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee
> waivers would be funded."
> >
> > I would not think this an equivalent item.
> >
> > This could be another work item, however..
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If the answers to the questions can be provided in advance of the
> Council meeting on 18 November, I think the chances of acting on this
> motion on the 18th will be increased and the sooner the better so that
> Councilors can provide the answers to their respective groups.
> > >
> > > Rafik/Bill: Do you consider the two proposed amendments as
> friendly?
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> >
