>
> 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@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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>