<div dir="ltr">Hi Avri,<div><br></div><div>while we can continue the work about new gTLD program, we should also cover another topic which is about having more registrars from developing countries to serve users there. we had such discussion when we presented the JAS 2nd milestone report last year and we had same comments again during ICANN meeting in prague. there are some particularities and issues like payments methods (yes credit card is not something common), pricing etc which limit the access to domains to registrants especially individuals from developing countries. new gTLD could fix some problems with more community-based registries and benefiting the more relaxed vertical integration rules, but ICANN missed such opportunity.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I am also wondering if the new RAA with new provisions creates de facto new economic and technical barriers to new entrants from developing regions and only benefits to incumbents (what about competition and anti-trust?) while possible provisions like validation and verification won't encourage those incumbents registrars to operate in Africa for example. For RAA negotiations, that can be another point to work on it in addition to our concerns about privacy, FoE and anonymity. All these are good to question the public interest task for ICANN and its role to encourage real competition and diversity for the benefit of registrants like non-commercial with more operators serving their communities.</div>
<div>I guess that we need on work on that,</div><div>and still work to be done for support applicant for second round if there is,</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br clear="all"><div dir="ltr"><div>Rafik Dammak</div>
@rafik<div>"fight for the users"</div></div><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/7/4 Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
This is something worth working on.<br>
<br>
While I was very much against working according to categories in this round, it was largely because I thought the categories were something emergent. I don't think we all could have agreed on the set categories before. But now we can. Or at least can come close.<br>
<br>
I think that the developing region applications are obviously a category that was not sufficiently included.<br>
<br>
As we start to think and plan for the next round, I think we could/should consider limiting it to categories, i.a. such as developing regions. I beleive remediating failures in diversity etc should be one of the primary goals of the next round. I expect that this may be a controversial perspective, perhaps even within NCSG, so it is going to take some discussion on:<br>
<br>
- whether a next round should be constrained across some but not all categories<br>
- if so, which categories<br>
<br>
It might be good to start figuring out if we, as NCSG collectively, or [NCUC, NPOC] separately, have viewpoints on such issues.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
PS: I love the way threads wander and morph in a living list.<br>
<br>
On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:15, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Alex Gakuru <<a href="mailto:gakuru@gmail.com">gakuru@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Is Africa, really, part of ICANN? the 'reveal' showed that 99.99 per cent of<br>
>> new gTLDs were from outside Africa which only managed to submit a palty 0.88<br>
>> per cent of the 1930 applications. As developed economies IP industry and<br>
>> brand owners entrench themselves deeper on ICANN, we're wondering, what's<br>
>> wrong with this model for Africa?<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> Alex, not just Africa, developing countries/region generally. Also<br>
> equal lack of applicants from Latin America and Caribbean, and<br>
> majority of Asia Pacific.<br>
> <<a href="http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus" target="_blank">http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus</a>><br>
><br>
> Plenty of applications from the Asia Pacific when taken across the<br>
> whole region, but only from the developed markets (China and India in<br>
> the ICT sector can be classed as developed.)<br>
><br>
> Failure of outreach, or just a reflection of economics. NCSG should<br>
> talk with the GAC about this. GAC's quite animated, complained to the<br>
> board.<br>
><br>
> Adam<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Alain Berranger <<a href="mailto:alain.berranger@gmail.com">alain.berranger@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi Avri,<br>
>>><br>
>>> It is clear to me too that NCUC/pre NPOC NCSG is a community of some kind<br>
>>> - I just don't quite grasp its essence yet, but what is sure is that I don't<br>
>>> yet feel part of it.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Looking back to Prague, at no times were any of the 5 NPOC members there<br>
>>> made to feel full members of that community. For instance, at your own dot<br>
>>> gay event at the sky bar, all NCUC members present were invited, but not a<br>
>>> single NPOC member was invited. When NCSG EC had informal gatherings, never<br>
>>> once were NPOC members included. That said, NPOC members there did not lack<br>
>>> social interaction with other Constituencies.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Yes Avri, you and I agree on the need for an NCUC email list for the NCUC<br>
>>> community.. Keeping NCSG list for building the new NCSG community made out<br>
>>> of both NCUC and NPOC members.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Alain<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hi,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Sorry to hear that.<br>
>>>> It is part of what makes us a community instead of just a SG.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Would have enjoyed hearing your voice as well.<br>
>>>> Though I guess I just did.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> BTW: I still think we need an announce list of the news and only the<br>
>>>> news for those members whole don't like all the touchy feely group, aka<br>
>>>> unprofessional, participation. I would like the NCSG EC to reconsider its<br>
>>>> decision from last year not to create such a list.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> avri<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:13, Michael Carson wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Hello,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Whoever is in charge of adding/removing email addresses to this<br>
>>>>> listserv, I am requesting that my email address be removed.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> This sort of exchange is fruitless, a waste of time and unprofessional.<br>
>>>>> This is not the first time I have received these types of email exchanges.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Again, please remove my email address.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Regards,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Michael Carson<br>
>>>>> YMCA of the USA<br>
>>>>><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>