November 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
by Stéphane Van Gelder 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

Councillors, As Avri does not have posting privileges to the Council list, please find below her response to my earlier question. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> > Date : 15 novembre 2010 12:09:22 HNEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com>, evan(a)telly.org > Objet : Rép : [council] Announcement from JAS working group > > Dear Stéphane, > > Again removed the council from the cc list due to my lack of posting privileges. > > The comments I made are, I believe, in keeping with the consensus already reached by the WG. Certainly the group was very committed to the need to investigate the basis of the 100 KUSD base charge and I suspect would be very disturbed to see it removed from the charter. Also the group has never shirked any task that was chartered by the chartering organizations, and thus my feeling that they would not reject an additional work item. > > However, we had already scheduled a meeting for tomorrow where the agenda includes reviewing any issue that have come up in the GNSO council relating to our report or the motion. Chuck's issues will be reviewed. > > So rest assured, the will of the JAS working Group has been and will continued to be taken into account. > > Your humble servant, > > a. > > > > > On 15 Nov 2010, at 11:58, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > >> The comments you made about working with staff and the answers given to Chuck's comments. >> >> Did I read that wrong? >> >> Stéphane >> >> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 11:38, Rafik Dammak a écrit : >> >>> Hi Stephane, >>> >>> what suggestions? >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> 2010/11/15 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >>> Rafik, >>> >>> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm confused as well. Are these suggestions from the working group, or from Avri and yourself? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Stéphane >>> >>> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 10:57, Rafik Dammak a écrit : >>> >>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >

1 0

Fwd: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
by Rafik Dammak 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

Hi, I am forwarding Avri response to Wolf. I want to add that we discussed about the need of motion and its process in the WG and the need to contact the chartering organizations either in confcalls or group mailing list. I want to thank Wolf for his interest to follow the WG in regard last confcall and also for trusting us. I am glad for the increasing interest on JAS WG report&further work, I hoped that I had more questions and feedback last time when I made updates during GNSO council confcall. Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: 2010/11/15 Subject: Re: AW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group To: Wolf Knoben <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, evan(a)telly.org, carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com> Dear Wolf-Ulrich Once again removed the council list as I have no posting rights. Feel free to forward if you believe it is appropriate. While the motion itself was only discussed briefly at the last call, the points in it were discussed at greater length when they were put in the report as Next Steps. So the issue in the call, was whether the rewording of the motion from Next Steps of the report to motion language had changed the meaning any. There were not objections either in the call, or on the list. cheers, a. On 15 Nov 2010, at 13:46, <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> wrote: > Hi Rafik, > > besides parts of the content of the motion I'm also still confused about the chartering process. As the council is supposed to "manage" the process I expect the draft motion having been discussed in detail in advance by the JAS-WG. I understand a similar approach to be taken by ALAC the other WG partner. > Following the recordings of the JAS-WG meeting on Nov 09 my impression is that there might be a lack of WG discussion about the draft charter presented. Taking my role as policy process "manager" seriously I personally have a problem to deal with matters knitted in a hurry. But may be I'm wrong, and you can dispel my doubts. > > Best regards > Wolf-Ulrich > > Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder > Gesendet: Montag, 15. November 2010 12:16 > An: Rafik Dammak > Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO > Betreff: Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group > > I'm sorry, I thought they were suggestions for going forward. I got the wrong end of the stick ;) > > Thanks for explaining Rafik. > > Stéphane > > Le 15 nov. 2010 à 12:04, Rafik Dammak a écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> I summarized the discussed points to clarify them, I thought that I made them more clear for you :) >> >> Rafik >> >> 2010/11/15 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >> The comments you made about working with staff and the answers given to Chuck's comments. >> >> Did I read that wrong? >> >> Stéphane >> >> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 11:38, Rafik Dammak a écrit : >> >>> Hi Stephane, >>> >>> what suggestions? >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> 2010/11/15 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >>> Rafik, >>> >>> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm confused as well. Are these suggestions from the working group, or from Avri and yourself? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Stéphane >>> >>> Le 15 nov. 2010 à 10:57, Rafik Dammak a écrit : >>> >>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >

1 0

Questions for Chair
by Adrian Kinderis 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

I have a question for Olga. Why hasn't she reached out to the Contract party house in her pursuit of Chair? I have not been contacted at all and I find it strange that, given that she is going for Chair, she would at least not try to explain her platform or perspectives on the Council. The fact that SVG is nominated is irrelevant. How does she expect to get votes? I would have thought that she would at least want the opportunity to open a dialogue with us/ me. Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry International Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistry.com<http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> - Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint<http://www.twitter.com/ausregistryint> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

1 0

Disclosures of Interest for 18 Nov Council Meeting
by Gomes, Chuck 14 Nov '10

14 Nov '10

Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding "any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party's judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion" in the 18 November Council meeting. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: "Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue." The main issues for this meeting are: * GNSO Project Decision Making * Status of Council Chair Nominations and NCA Assignments * Disclosure of Interest Procedures motion * Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement * New gTLD Applicant Guidebook * RySG endorsements for AoC SSR RT replacement If you have any disclosures that are not already included in your SoI regarding any of the above, please communicate them on the list or be prepared to do so in the meeting, and in follow-up pleases update your SoI. Thanks, Chuck

3 3

NEW Registry Operator Code of Conduct
by Bruce Tonkin 14 Nov '10

14 Nov '10

Hello All, Note that as part of the Board's decision to allow cross-ownership between registries and registrars, a "Registry Operator Code of Conduct" has been included in the "Proposed Final" new gTLD Registry Agreement. From: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-clean-12n ov10-en.pdf Regards, Bruce Tonkin SPECIFICATION 9* Registry Operator Code of Conduct [*Note: This draft Registry Operator Code of Conduct has been added to the form New gTLD Agreement pursuant to the ICANN Board resolution of 5 November 2010 regarding the question of cross-ownership of gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited registrars. ICANN encourages community input on the types of conduct that should be prohibited and/or mandated given the potential for cross-ownership of domain-name distribution channels.] 1. Registry Operator will not, and will not allow any parent, subsidiary, Affiliate, subcontractor or other related entity (each, a "Registry Related Party") to: a. directly or indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration to any registrar; b. register domain names in its own right, except for names registered through an ICANN accredited registrar that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations and purpose of the TLD; c. have access to user data or proprietary information of a registrar utilized by or Affiliated with Registry Operator, except as necessary for management and operations of the TLD; or d. register names in the TLD or sub-domains of the TLD based upon a search of available names by any consumer (i.e., "front-running"). 2. If Registry Operator or a Registry Related Party also operates as a provider of registrar or registrar reseller services, Registry Operator will, or will cause such Registry Related Party to, maintain separate books of accounts with respect to its registrar or registrar-reseller operations. 3. Registry Operator will, and will cause each Registry Related Party to, ensure that no user data or proprietary information from any registrar is disclosed to Registry Operator or any Registry Related Party, except as necessary for the management and operations of the TLD. 4. Registry Operator will not disclose confidential registry data or confidential information about its registry services or operations to any employee of any DNS services provider, except as necessary for the management and operations of the TLD. 5. Registry Operator will conduct internal reviews at least once per calendar year to ensure compliance with this Code of Conduct. Within twenty (20) calendar days following the end of each calendar year, Registry Operator will provide the results of the internal review, along with a certification executed by an executive officer of Registry Operator certifying as to Registry Operator's compliance with this Code of Conduct, via email to [an address to be provided by ICANN]. (ICANN may specify in the future that the reports be delivered by other reasonable means.) 6. Nothing set forth herein shall: (i) limit ICANN from conducting investigations of claims of Registry Operator's non-compliance with this Code of Conduct; or (ii) provide grounds for Registry Operator to refuse to cooperate with ICANN investigations of claims of Registry Operator's non-compliance with this Code of Conduct.

1 0

Interim Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries (Phase I)
by Margie Milam 14 Nov '10

14 Nov '10

Dear Councilors, On behalf of the VI PDP Working Group, I am pleased to inform you that the VI Working Group has published its Interim Report on Vertical Integration between Registrars and Registries (Phase I). This Interim Report describes the absence of a consensus within the VI Working Group for any recommendations for the first round of new gTLDs (Phase I of the PDP). With Phase I of the PDP complete, the VI Working Group intends to suspend its activities pending further instructions from the GNSO Council for conducting Phase II of the PDP, which is expected to focus on developing a long term solution for both new gTLD and existing gTLDs. Please note that due to its size, the Interim Report is posted on the WIKI page for the VI Working Group below, and will be posted on the GNSO Council website shortly. https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?vertical_integration_pdp Best Regards, Margie ____________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ____________

4 4

Motion to Terminate The Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars
by Gomes, Chuck 14 Nov '10

14 Nov '10

Please note that the motion Stéphane made to terminate the VI PDP has not yet been seconded. If anyone wishes to second the motion, please do so on the Council list. If a second is received and as noted by Stéphane, before acting on the motion we will have to first determine if there are any objections to making an exception to the GNSO Operating Procedures requirement that motions be made at least 8 days in advance of the meeting. I encourage all Councilors to consult with your respective groups regarding this motion and the other two motions that have been made. Thanks, Chuck

2 1

FW: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
by Gomes, Chuck 14 Nov '10

14 Nov '10

Forward for Avri with thanks. 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. 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. 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. > > > >

1 0

Reminder: Questions re. Proposed Final New gTLD AG
by Gomes, Chuck 14 Nov '10

14 Nov '10

Please note the following agenda item for our 18 Nov Council meeting: "Item 7: New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (30 minutes) 7.1 Refer to latest version of the guidebook: (Insert link) 7.2 Highlights (Kurt Pritz?) 7.3 Discussion 7.4 Action Items? 7.5 Joint Applicant Support WG (Rafik Dammak) * Refer to JAS WG recommendations: (Insert link) * Brief overview of recommendations (Rafik Dammak) * Refer to Motion to Extend the WG: (Insert link) * Discussion * Vote (Note that absentee voting does not apply) 7.6 VI PDP WG Interim Report * Refer to Report: (Insert link) * Brief overview of report (Council Liaison or Margie Milam) Status of the WG?" In the 30 minutes allotted, we have an awful lot to cover, so it will be necessary for any questions for Kurt regarding the latest version of the guidebook be submitted in advance. That will hopefully help us to organize the questions and facilitate quick responses. It is likely that not all questions will be handled in the short time we have but maybe some can be answered on the list. Please submit any questions for Kurt as soon as possible but definitely by close of business on Tuesday, 16 November. Chuck

1 0

Re: [council] Announcement from JAS working group
by Rafik Dammak 14 Nov '10

14 Nov '10

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. > > > >

2 1