W-U Would this work for you c) Establishing a general framework for the management of any funds that may be made available for applicant support through auctions [or other sources]. So again, not saying anything about the JAS managing/envisioning either a) a foundation or b) the disposition of auction funds generally. Just IF funds are made available through auctions. On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Drake William wrote:
Hi
I would think it necessary for the JAS to be able to consider a basic framework for how any auction funds that are made available for applicant support could be managed. Otherwise, the group's long journey through the woods ends by standing in front of the castle door without knocking. At the same time, it is easy to understand Wolf-Ulrich's view that, "one can expect many interested community groups expressing their needs to share that profit where new applicants are one group of it," so how a foundation and auctions might work are larger issues that might better be dealt with through another mechanism.
Wolf-Ulrich, is there a way to split the difference and make it crystal clear that we're mandating JAS to only look at how at how any auction funds could be managed, rather than implying that the JAS might do the broader work? E.g. "Establishing a general framework for the management of any funds that may be made available for applicant support through auctions conducted by a separate ICANN originated foundation" or similar?
Bill
On Dec 8, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi Stephane,
unfortunately, I cannot consider the amendment to remove 1.c as friendly amendment.
Regards
Rafik
2010/12/8 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Rafik, Bill, I am unsure if you answered this or not so I apologize if this is a repost.
Did you consider this as a FA?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 12:41 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
Rafik/Bill, Do you consider this amendment friendly? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:08 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension All, I'd like to amend the "Motion for JAS WG charter extension" as follows: Remove "Resolved 1. c) Establishing a framework (for consideration etcetera,) including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance;" Rationale: First, I'm convinced the community and ICANN have to be prepared how to manage any potential new gTLD auction profit. As usual in case profit is available one can expect many interested community groups expressing their needs to share that profit where new applicants are one group of it. In addition parts of the overall ICANN program could also profit from that fund (e.g. outreach program, DNS security etc.). So my reservations to this topic being covered by the JAS group only are: - it is a too large area for the JAS and would go far beyond their originally intended scope - there are lots of more urgent tasks for this WG as laid down in the new draft charter. Handling the potential auction profit is of lower priority on the timescale . - as per definition the JAS view is applicant oriented that would cause an imbalance As I pointed out in former e-mails the JAS could express the new applicants' general interest in taking part in the distribution of the potential auction profit.
I suggest to initiate discussion on council level how to cover this topic separately and appropriately.
I'm in agreement with all other items in the charter and would be happy if the amendment could be accepted as friendly . Save travels to Cartagena Wolf-Ulrich Von: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2010 20:58 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: regarding your amendment
Hi Wolf-Ulrich, regarding your comment last time about JAS motion, I would like to know what are the reasons for asking to remove the 1.c . I think that we should find a better and constructive compromise.what do you think? Regards Rafik