Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [] Motion for JAS WG charter extension

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Ca I suggest the following:

Modify it to read:


 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.

Rafik, do you think Wolf-Ulrich much accept such an amendment?

Would ALAC accept such an amendment?

Also good to know how people would feel about clause c being removed in its 
entirety.

a.

On 2 Dec 2010, at 05:23, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> 
> we discussed in the last call about this point and Wolf-Ulrich sent the email 
> below about removing 1.c , please send me your feedback .
> Have nice and safe travel,
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2010/12/2
> Subject: [council] Motion for JAS WG charter extension
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
>  
> 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 
>  
> 
>