[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Agenda for Tuesday 16 november

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

The main issue is to go over some of the man emails we have received from GNSO 
council members about our charter changes.


Most importantly there has been a request for an amendment to change one of the 
work items

from:

> 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.”


to:

> “Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee 
> waivers would be funded.”

I have argued that these motions are not interchangeable, but that I did not 
think the group would mind having Chuck's motion added as long as our original 
chartered item was maintained.

You will also notice that thee were other issues in Chuck's email to which I 
have given responses.

a.


(Below are sone of the excerpts - there were other messages.  The GNSO archive 
can be found at:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/

the motion itself can be found at:

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_november_motions
----

>From Chuck:


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’.
·         Have the experts needed been identified yet?  If not, how will they 
be identified?
·         Is it anticipated that adding experts will require funding?  If so, 
from where would the funding come?
 
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?
·         Has this idea been vetted with the ICANN General Council’s office?
 
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?
·         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.”
 
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
 

------
Note:  Bill Drake seconded Rafik motion
-----

My Answers

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.










-----

Chuck's response

Very helpful responses Avri. I think it would be helpful if they were
forwarded to the Council list if Rafik and Bill are okay with that. In
fact I would encourage one of them to do so; or if they prefer I could
do it.

Regarding the GC question, I don't know whether or not they have to be
involved.  When you mention an ICANN originated foundation, it seemed to
me to involve some legal issues.

My questions were not so much personal questions as they were questions
that I was trying to anticipate others may ask and if they are answered
before the meeting, it might improve the chances of the motion passing
on the 18th.


------

My Response

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 15 Nov 2010, at 11:58, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

We also have email from several council members who were concerned that Rafik 
and I were speaking out of turn:

The comments you made about working with staff and the answers given to Chuck's 
comments.

Did I read that wrong?

Stéphane

my response

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.

also notice a concern from wolf-Ulrich that the WG has not been a sufficient 
part of making this motion:

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

My response:

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.