I am following a discussion on the same at a local IGF (Kenya IGF). Forgive my questions because sometimes ICAAN is complicated but I would like to understand:<br>a) did anyone apply for the "aided" application that is supposed to be cheaper?<br>
b) if yes, were these from developing countries? <br>c) if these "aided "applications were few, just like those from developing countries, really, why is this so?<br>d) and thinking aloud, did these applications even achieve the initial intention? is there an alternative to this system or have we(developing countries) been left behind in the next revolution?<br>
thanks!<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/7/6 klaus.stoll <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:klaus.stoll@chasquinet.org" target="_blank">klaus.stoll@chasquinet.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Calibri'"><font face="Times New Roman">Dear Friends<br><br>Greetings. I am very happy that the
topic of registrars from developing countries has come up as it is indeed very
important. Here are my current five cents worth.<br><br>First of all it is not
just a numbers game, it is not important how many registrars from a developing
region, but their overall quality of them and who they in fact represent.
Secondly, we need to look what is going wrong inside our ICANN box that seems to
keep registrars from developing regions out. So what I means we need to look
inward and outward at the same time on this topic.<br><br>Secondly we need to
look for opportunities to change the situation and I think given the scope and
mandate of ICANN I think here we need to look also outside the ICANN plate to
get the situation resolved.<br><br>As ED of GKPF and as a NPOC member I want to
be practical and offer our existing infrastructure and contacts towards this
cause, in particular as this is a clear win/win situation for all involved as
this allows us to serve our members better.<br><br>1. Talking about members:
GKPF has a number of African region members and I am happy to use our contacts
to get the message through and get things going, but it would be up to us all
what the message is and what the action would be. (BTW, GKPF has also good
contacts to other developing regions which can be used.<br><br>2. GKPF is
involved with the Annual Innovation Africa Digital Summit which reaches all of
Africa and on a particular governmental and industry level. (Last year the
.Africa Applicants made a big splash at the meeting in Addis). I am more hen
happy to get talks going with the organizers to see what can and should be done,
but again, first we need a plan.<br><br>3. GKPF is the chair of the Program and
Content Committee of the upcoming Computer Online Protection Conference Africa
2013 ,(together with ITU). There might be some synergies that could be
exploited.<br><br>4. WSIS. The WSIS preparation for the WSIS Forum in 2013 is
just starting and GKPF hopes to play a large role in it. I think the WSIS
process is one of the ways to get things done.<br><br>These are my first initial
thoughts. I hope that you accept my challenge and that we can start working on
concrete things with concrete results in and outside and through the ICANN
box.<br><br>I also want to let you know that I was extremely saddened by some of
the comments made about GKPF at Prague as a organization non existent and
irrelevant. Yes, GKP took a 2 year “time out” to reinvent itself as GKPF and has
come out of the process the better and stronger and as I said it is very sad to
hear people holding it against us that we did the not popular but the right
thing.<br><br>In the hope that you found the above
helpful.<br><br>Yours<br><br>Klaus</font>
<div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:'Calibri';display:inline;font-weight:normal">
<div style="FONT:10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND:#f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM" href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">Rafik Dammak</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:52 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: gTLD for developing regions was Re: [] knitters
needle</div></div></div>
<div> </div></div><div><div class="h5">
<div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:'Calibri';display:inline;font-weight:normal">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Avri,
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>The one on RAA is critical as this is s till under
discussion. Perhaps you can develop that theme into a comment that
NCSG/[NCUC, NPOC] can endorse.<br></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Thank you Avri, I like NCSG way to volunteer each other ;), I think
that is better if I start to draft something and share with NCSGers. I am not
sure about the format, and should we include it in a letter/comment to detail
NCSG position regarding RAA, something to coordinate with efforts started by
Wendy.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>Some of the other topics are long term, but perhaps we
can figure out ways to work on them over the longer term, so at the right time
we are ready to contribute well developed proposals.<br></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<p>indeed, long-term work,a kind of strategic planning we have to think
about and also to allow enough time to outreach the different SG of the
community.</p>
<div>I am not yet thinking about cross-community working group :)</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>I think helping local populations create RSPs and Rrs in
developing regions is one of the key means of raising the capacity of
developing regions and one of the ways to insure there are qualified
applicants ready to take on the challenge of applying for new registries
without needing to chain themselves to incumbent RSPs and Rrs (ie yet another
variant of cyber-colonialism).<br></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I guess that is close to what you proposed for JAS, something that we can
develop and improve, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Rafik</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span><font color="#888888"><br>avri<br></font></span>
<div>
<div><br><br>On 4 Jul 2012, at 11:14, Rafik Dammak wrote:<br><br>>
Hi Avri,<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>> I guess
that we need on work on that,<br>> and still work to be done for support
applicant for second round if there is,<br>><br>> Best,<br>><br>>
Rafik Dammak<br>> @rafik<br>> "fight for the
users"<br>><br>><br>><br>> 2012/7/4 Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>><br>> 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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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>><br></div></div></blockquote></div>
<div> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Grace L.N. Mutung'u (Bomu)<br>Kenya<br>Skype: gracebomu<br>Twitter: GraceMutung'u (Bomu)<br><br>