Fwd: [gtld-council] RE: Forgotten issue in the new gTLD policy discussion

[Mawaki Chango]

In case anyone is interested...

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Subject: [gtld-council] RE:  Forgotten issue in the new gTLD policy
> discussion
> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:04:28 +1100
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> To: <gtld-council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Hello Mawaki,
>
> Thanks for raising this.  This is part of the reason for holding
> the
> meeting this week - ie to identify what pieces have inadvertently
> "dropped" out or need to be added in the current draft.   As I
> understood the plan was to add the material you produced on dealing
> with
> supporting developing countries under implementation guidelines
> with
> respect to approaches ICANN can consider to ensure appropriate
> diversity
> in applications.
>
> Lets discuss further in the committee on Friday when you are here.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2007 9:13 PM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: [council] Forgotten issue in the new gTLD policy
> discussion
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> > Bruce,
> >
> > At the Amsterdam meeting, end of August 2006, while we were
> > discussing the selection criteria of the new gTLD policy, our
> > colleague Ken Stubb threw the idea of paying particular
> > attention to the situation of developing countries. It
> > followed a short exchange (notably with Marilyn Cade) and it
> > sounded like a rough consensus that there was something to
> > say or do about this question one way or the other. I tried
> > to keep the ball rolling but the comittee didn't seem to have
> > much time to pay further attention to this, so I posted a few
> > proposals on the council list, calling for further
> > consideration. After Amsterdam, apart from a few questions
> > asked by Chuck Gomez to which I responded, there hasn't been,
> > to my knowledge, further discussion of this issue. However, I
> > note that all traces have disappeared altogether from the
> > draft final report.
> >
> > If there was a discussion and a decision taken by the Council
> > during a call that I missed, please be so kind to indicate to
> > me the date of such call and/or direct me to the records and
> > minutes of that meeting.
> >
> > Assuming such discussion by the Council has never taken
> > place, I wish to submit to your attention the attached draft
> > (hardly two pages, in plain text below) that I have prepared
> > in order to enable us carry out that necessary discussion.
> >
> > Bruce, this is the last opportunity that I have to request
> > you, as the Chair, to accommodate this discussion in the
> > agenda of the upcoming meeting in Marina del Rey. Whatever
> > the reality is, I think we can all face it through honnest
> > and articulated arguments; it would be hard not to agree that
> > shunning cannot be established as a way of forming policy.
> >
> > I am traveling tomorrow Thursday and will arrive at Marina
> > del Rey only at the end of the day. I will attend the meeting
> > from Friday, and I look forward to seeing you all again.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Mawaki
> > *****
> >
> > A. Background and Motivation
> >
> > The time has come for ICANN to take an aggressive turn toward
> > a truly global governance of the Internet, ensuring  further
> > openness, diversity, and competition through its processes as
> > well as by their outcomes. There clearly is a benefit as well
> > as a cost, either symbolic, material or both, to be the
> > authority that everybody in the industry looks at, and often
> > relies on, at one level or the other.
> > Just as it accepts the privilege (and benefit) to play such
> > role, ICANN needs to accept to bear the related
> > responsibility (or cost) toward the whole community, and this
> > may have different flavors depending on the specific
> > conditions of the different participant groups or regions, in
> > connection with ICANN's business.
> >
> > For example, we need to realize that there is a huge cost to
> > bear for a developing Non-English speaking country (and there
> > are many such
> > examples,) with regard to the conditions in which ICANN has
> > conducted its business over the past decade. ICANN may well
> > translate its public documents in several languages, it does
> > not, however, process applications, negotiate or sign
> > contracts other than in English and the related legal
> > environment. ICANN takes decisions that impact the
> > possibility of entry in the Internet industry and market.
> > Though the Internet industry and market are global, not every
> > potential player has had the same access to the information
> > about market opportunities because of those linguistic and
> > cultural shortcomings. Economists and Policy Analysts would
> > identify this as a market failure by means of information
> asymmetry.
> >
> > Indeed, the fact that ICANN's tools and processes for
> > policy-making are in a specific language results in a loss
> > for countries that are not in any position, at start, to be
> > familiar with those tools and processes, neither to their
> > cultural environment. For many, this means, among other
> > things, 8 years or so lagging behind and even locked out of
> > the industry. Those with poor or very limited institutional
> > and economic development, in addition, are even worse off. As
> > a result, it is once again those having less who still get
> > less, falling farther behind, while paying the same market
> > price as every one if not more because of their poor
> > organization (cost of access, international bandwidth and
> > interconnections, etc.)
> >
> > Obviously, setting application criteria that are tailored (or
> based
> > on) the performance of the most developed economies in the
> > world equates to excluding the majority of the areas and people.
> >
> > Finally, in the global Internet community, there are vibrant
> > groups of users technically capable of running a registry and
> > willing to serve their grassroots communities on a voluntary
> > basis. Experience has shown that a non-profit model of
> > registry can work just as fine as the commercial model.
> >
> > For better or worse, the Internet is a global facility, but
> > it shouldn't only be so from the demand and the user side,
> > but also and genuinely from the operation and supply side as
> > well. If we chose not to address the issues raised above, we
> > will be sending a message of exclusion to the face of people
> > who are concerned and eager to participate actively and
> > responsibly on both ends and contribute to the promising
> > expansion of this uniquely global network.
> >
> > B. Proposals for action
> >
> > Thus, I would like to call on the GNSO Council to consider
> > and address the following issues in its PDP, and more
> > generally, ICANN to initiate a phased process starting with
> > the implementation of the current new gTLD policy being
> > developed, in order to progressively achieve the following
> > objectives in the near term:
> >
> > 1. Establish a capacity-building and support mechanism aiming
> > at facilitating effective communication on important and
> > technical Internet governance functions in a way which no
> > longer requires all participants in the conversation to be
> > able to read and write English.
> >
> > 2. Put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD applicants
> > from developing economies, and make the financial and the
> > operational threshold for market entry easier for those from
> > less developed economies.
> >
> > 3. The ICANN gTLD application process should be able to
> > receive and process applications in major languages other
> > than English, and the documents needed to apply should be
> > available in the
> > six working languages of the United Nations.	
> >
> >
> > Drafted by Mawaki Chango
> > GNSO Council Member
> > February 21, 2007
> >
>
>