I've some questionmarks regarding the Resolved under 1. c) 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; This task seems to be beyond the scope of this group since use of auction income - beyond cost coverage - could be discussed from different point of views, not just from a perspective of applicant support. So more "neutrality" is required for this part of the discussion. I'd like to discuss this furtheron. Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. November 2010 11:18 An: zahid@dndrc.com; HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen Betreff: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Thanks Debbie for proposing this amendment and Zahid for your expressed support. Rafik and Bill - Do you support it as a friendly amendment? Chuck From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:43 PM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion I would also support this amendment. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** _____ From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:46:24 -0500 To: <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>; <Glen@icann.org>; <cgomes@verisign.com> Subject: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Rafik, I definitely support the work of the JAS working group and submitted comments to that effect when the initial report was published. Thanks for your efforts and those of the WG! I was wondering if you would consider a friendly amendment to your Motion for JAS WG charter extension. I would like to add the concept of bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts in small or underserved languages, at discounted fees. Rationale: For example, a multinational organization could consider multiple IDN scripts (like Arabic or Korean) to connect with a community in their native language. At $185,000 per application, that becomes very cost prohibitive, especially for a NGOs that may want to use the string to deliver services and not monetize the string for profits. In my reading of the report, it seems the WG considered bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts at discounted fees. (See "Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts" Item 2.2.1) So, would you consider a friendly amendment adding the following objective to the list provided in the Motion? "Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages." Thanks, Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hi Adrian, thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support. 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines) Regards Rafik 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Rafik, I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG. It is all good work that is deserved of our attention. However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants. Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG's for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it; - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and 'standard' ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik