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
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
Hello, we may offer other rewording that respond to Wolf-Ulrich remarks: "c) Establishing a framework for consideration by the chartering organizations and the community at large that deals with methods where by any moneys raised for the purposes of support of new gTLD applicants. This framework could include a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation. As the recommendations made by the Support for New gTLD Applicants also include a proposed use for surplus auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance, this framework could include a proposal for disposition of these fund, realizing however, the the use of surplus auction funds is a wider community topic and may include other proposals for the use of such funds." what do you think? Regards Rafik 2010/12/2 <KnobenW@telekom.de>
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 priorityon 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
Rafik, it doesn't make me happy since it may generate duplicated efforts regarding the same topic which is not very effective. Let's talk about this in Cartagena. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 15:21 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension Hello, we may offer other rewording that respond to Wolf-Ulrich remarks: "c) Establishing a framework for consideration by the chartering organizations and the community at large that deals with methods where by any moneys raised for the purposes of support of new gTLD applicants. This framework could include a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation. As the recommendations made by the Support for New gTLD Applicants also include a proposed use for surplus auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance, this framework could include a proposal for disposition of these fund, realizing however, the the use of surplus auction funds is a wider community topic and may include other proposals for the use of such funds." what do you think? Regards Rafik 2010/12/2 <KnobenW@telekom.de> 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
Will we get a chance to discuss this prior to the Public Meeting on Wednesday? Is there an opportunity over the next two days to discuss any current motions? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:21 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension Hello, we may offer other rewording that respond to Wolf-Ulrich remarks: "c) Establishing a framework for consideration by the chartering organizations and the community at large that deals with methods where by any moneys raised for the purposes of support of new gTLD applicants. This framework could include a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation. As the recommendations made by the Support for New gTLD Applicants also include a proposed use for surplus auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance, this framework could include a proposal for disposition of these fund, realizing however, the the use of surplus auction funds is a wider community topic and may include other proposals for the use of such funds." what do you think? Regards Rafik 2010/12/2 <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> 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<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
To my understanding, we'll discuss this at 2:45 p.m., see agenda Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Gesendet: Samstag, 4. Dezember 2010 17:27 An: Rafik Dammak; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension Will we get a chance to discuss this prior to the Public Meeting on Wednesday? Is there an opportunity over the next two days to discuss any current motions? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:21 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension Hello, we may offer other rewording that respond to Wolf-Ulrich remarks: "c) Establishing a framework for consideration by the chartering organizations and the community at large that deals with methods where by any moneys raised for the purposes of support of new gTLD applicants. This framework could include a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation. As the recommendations made by the Support for New gTLD Applicants also include a proposed use for surplus auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance, this framework could include a proposal for disposition of these fund, realizing however, the the use of surplus auction funds is a wider community topic and may include other proposals for the use of such funds." what do you think? Regards Rafik 2010/12/2 <KnobenW@telekom.de> 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
That is correct. My mistake. I missed it. Apologies. Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:28 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; avri@ella.com Subject: AW: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension To my understanding, we'll discuss this at 2:45 p.m., see agenda Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Gesendet: Samstag, 4. Dezember 2010 17:27 An: Rafik Dammak; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension Will we get a chance to discuss this prior to the Public Meeting on Wednesday? Is there an opportunity over the next two days to discuss any current motions? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:21 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension Hello, we may offer other rewording that respond to Wolf-Ulrich remarks: "c) Establishing a framework for consideration by the chartering organizations and the community at large that deals with methods where by any moneys raised for the purposes of support of new gTLD applicants. This framework could include a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation. As the recommendations made by the Support for New gTLD Applicants also include a proposed use for surplus auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance, this framework could include a proposal for disposition of these fund, realizing however, the the use of surplus auction funds is a wider community topic and may include other proposals for the use of such funds." what do you think? Regards Rafik 2010/12/2 <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> 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<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
There is a session this afternoon on JAS and VI. Chuck From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 11:27 AM To: rafik.dammak@gmail.com; KnobenW@telekom.de <KnobenW@telekom.de> Cc: council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension Will we get a chance to discuss this prior to the Public Meeting on Wednesday? Is there an opportunity over the next two days to discuss any current motions? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:21 AM To: KnobenW@telekom.de Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension Hello, we may offer other rewording that respond to Wolf-Ulrich remarks: "c) Establishing a framework for consideration by the chartering organizations and the community at large that deals with methods where by any moneys raised for the purposes of support of new gTLD applicants. This framework could include a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation. As the recommendations made by the Support for New gTLD Applicants also include a proposed use for surplus auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance, this framework could include a proposal for disposition of these fund, realizing however, the the use of surplus auction funds is a wider community topic and may include other proposals for the use of such funds." what do you think? Regards Rafik 2010/12/2 <KnobenW@telekom.de> 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
participants (4)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Rafik Dammak