Input on new gTLD application

[Mawaki Chango]

I have made a few changes in the last part of the text (below) and
the new version of the document is attached. Please note, wherever I
put "?" indicates that I'm not sure about the language. So please
help.

Harold, Danny, Carlos, Norbert, Iliya, Milton et al. I look forward
to your comments.
thanks.

Mawaki


For all those reasons, we would like to call on ICANN to initiate a
phased process starting with the implementation of the current new
gTLD policy being developed, in order to progressively (and
incrementally?) achieved the following objectives:

1) Translate ICANN's governance, policy and contractual instruments
in at least all the six working languages of the United Nations
(ICANN is left with the discretion to work also in other languages
that may not have the UN official status, in accordance with the
evolution of the Internet and its user community);

2) Receive and process all gTLD applications drafted in at least any
of the UN working languages;

3) Ensure subsequent correspondence with the applicants in the
language of their gTLD application;

4) Put in place a mechanism to administer a fee reduction program for
gTLD applicants from developing economies and disadvantaged
communities, which will be funded both by ICANN's proper funds
(whether from the application process or from a specific budget item)
and, possibly, from extra-budgetary sources;

5) Make the threshold for market entry easier for those from less
developed economies, as well as for non-commercial and
community-based gTLD applicants who demonstrate the need.

For better or worse (?), the Internet is a global facility, but it
isn't only so from the demand and the user end; it must be so 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 in the expansion of this unique network.


--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> as promised, here is an addendum to our input to the new gTLD
> policy
> development process. please find the word version in the
> attachment.
> feel free to comment and contribute ideas, edit and correct the
> language, etc. i'd like, though, to get the substance to the GNSO
> final report, thanks.
>
> mawaki
>
> ********
>
> ICANN
> GNSO Policy Development Process on New gTLDs
> February, 2007
>
> The time has come for ICANN to take an aggressive turn toward a
> truly
> global governance, ensuring  further inclusiveness, 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.
>
> We need to realize that there is a huge cost for a developing
> Non-English
> speaking country, for example, (and there are many such examples,)
> to
> bear with regard to the conditions in which ICANN has conducted its
> business over the past decade. ICANN may well translate its public
> documents in all languages in currency within the United Nations,
> it
> does not, however, process applications, negotiate or sign contacts
> other than in English, and furthermore in those processes, it will
> often rely on a legal tradition that doesn't go beyond the
> Anglo-American cultural and linguistic space. ICANN takes decisions
> that impact the possibility of entry in the Internet industry and
> market, that is, it take decisions that have regulatory effects. By
> default, Internet industry and market must be global, just as the
> medium itself. And the cultural and linguistic bias in which ICANN
> has operated so far results in 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 in the
> world.
>
> 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 all those reasons, we would like to call on ICANN to consider,
> in
> the current new gTLD policy development process, all necessary
> measures in order to:
>
> 1) Have its governance, policy and contractual instruments
> translated
> at least in all working languages of the United Nations;
>
> 2) Receive and process all gTLD applications drafted in at least
> any
> of the UN working languages;
>
> 3) Ensure subsequent correspondence with the applicants in the
> working language of their choice, that is, the language of their
> application;
>
> 4) Put in place a mechanism to administer a fee reduction program
> for
> gTLD applicants from developing economies or disadvantaged
> communities, which will be funded both by ICANN's proper funds
> (whether from the application process or from a specific budget
> item)
> and, possibly, by extra-budgetary sources;
>
> 5) Make the threshold for market entry easier for those from less
> developed economies, as well as for non-commercial and
> community-based applicants who demonstrate the need.
>
> For better or worse (?), the Internet is a global facility, but it
> isn't only so from the demand and the user end; it must be so 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 in the expansion of this unique network.
>
>
> On behalf on NCUC & Supporters, etc.
> Drafted by Mawaki Chango
> February 18, 2007
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Addendum2_Input to PDP-Feb05.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 58880 bytes
Desc: 1091631501-Addendum2_Input to PDP-Feb05.doc
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20070220/9d3f51fa/attachment.doc>