Question 3: Issues over the next years

[Alain Berranger]

Bonjour Rafik,

Thank you for your comprehensive and much appreciated response. I have a few
comments below:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Bonjour Alain, ,
>
> 2011/10/12 Alain Berranger <alain.berranger at gmail.com>
>
>> I'm concerned about the first round of gTLD finally going forward with so
>> many of the details in JAS issues unresolved, recognizing any further delay
>> is undesirable. The work of the JAS needs to be continued with a much
>> broader participation so as to enrich the debate and the perspectives.
>
>
> wearing here the hat of co-chair of JAS WG I want to give some
> clarification about JAS works: the final report was approved by both GNSO
> and ALAC and sent by them to board (thanks again to everybody who worked
> hard during this summer to achieve that), a public comment period about the
> report for ICANN community is going to be opened soon, so comments are
> warmly welcome . Moreover, the ICANN staff should work on the implementation
> plan to be proposed for board consideration, some important decision in that
> regard are expected from board during Dakar meeting about JAS
> recommendations especially because the context and host country.
> regarding JAS continuation, there was already some discussion in topics
> like encouraging registrars activities in developing regions (raised by
> comments during ICANN meeting in Singapore)  but also there is expected work
> about implementation plan itself (the recommendations are not limited to
> application period starting in next January)
> for remind, any GNSO WG is open to everybody, and we got new people the
> last months even if it is sometimes hard for newcomers to catch ongoing
> discussions.
>
> Excellent clarifications. Yes, as a new person myself that came to JAS in
the late stages, I did find it hard sometimes to get the full meaning or
appreciate the agenda of on-going discussions and understand the full
complexity of the issues. Without moderation of comments on the list, I
found sometimes that the "debate" got lost on side issues and, at times, the
tone of comments by a few participants was occasionnally unpleasant in the
sense that it did not rest on evidence/facts but more on beliefs and edged
on contempt or at least disrespect at times - what better way to end a
debate!? Sometimes the meaning of these comments did not seem relevant and
certainly lost me by the use of super-technical linguo, oodles of acronyms
or seemingly obscure issues not properly explained by those apparently  in
the know. There was also, on occasions, some rigidity of positions by some
influential participants at times. I found the twice a week frequency of
conference calls did not allow enough time to reflect properly and
contribute substantially in-between calls. I obviously limited my comments
to my areas of comfort and expertise and enjoyed the steep learning curve.
That said, the majority of the work and interventions were excellent and I
felt proud to be part of the JAS WG, even if I was a small part. Good work!
Yes the recommendations apply to future rounds but many of the details will
not be worked out in time for the first round, despite best efforts and good
intentions - who knows if and when a second round will be needed or happen?
Anyway, we will see what happens with the first round and it will be
interesting to see how much "surplus" funding will actually be generated in
the first round. The first $2 million to be injected by ICANN may never be
used in its totality or it may prove grossly inadequate? There is so much
more to do in educating NGOs regarding their use of the internet and
protection of their domain names investments and I'm hoping that the gTLD
round will generate not only funds to support entrepreneurial "worthy"
applicants (what a debate!), but also to educate a much larger number of
"worthy" NGO internet users.

>
>> Finally, domain name security and transparency of ICANN's work will
>> dominate the issues over the next few years. To increase the quality of the
>> debate of these issues, we must bring new voices (more youth, more women,
>> more developing world voices) and the new skills and mindsets they bring to
>> increase the quality of the external and internal oversight and governance
>> of ICANN's work. More young members will increase the capacity to understand
>> and combat gaming, fraud, abuse, cyber squatting, etc...
>>
>
> nice to hear about bringing youth, I heard that many times in different
> Internet Governance fora but the reality is far from that discourse.  I am
> young person (at least according to UN definition :)) and from developing
> country, I am quite doubtful when I see some icann constituencies dominated
> by western (to avoid saying north american) adults talking about diversity
> :) but at least in NCSG it has already young people involved and joined us
> these last months even if it is not easy to participate in ICANN because it
> is increasing complexity  .
>
> Rafik, I get your point and you may perhaps agree with me that westerners
talking about diversity is not a sin per se and probably highly desirable,
provided they also walk the talk! That said, I have travelled more than most
and worked long enough worldwide to know that non-westerners also need to
talk about diversity and walk the talk too! :) Without carbon-dating myself,
I realized recently with a bit of humor that I flew to Dakar for the first
time a long time ago when Pan Am was actually flying Boeing 707's between NY
and Dakar and, Iran under the Shah's regime and Sénégal under Senghor's
Presidency, were doing international cooperation!


> about security issues, I am participating at the DNS security and stability
> WG and even if we are at the beginning stage, the definition of threats and
> etc is not easy while I find that many people in ICANN community for several
> reasons have confusion about "cybercrime" and other "threats" (I like
> the title of usual workshop in ICANN meeting called "DNS abuses", maybe the
> DNS can be abused by not really by "cybercriminals"...)
>
> Processes must be transparent and appear to be transparent and we should
>> encourage open external and internal reviews of all kinds to raise the
>> confidence level in the organization and its processes. This is true of the
>> staffed organization processes but also the processes of the constituencies.
>>
>
> for transparency and accountability, the effort started with AT review team
> set-up last year if I recall correctly, but a lot of work remain and the
> board must be more keen to apply the different recommendations that it got
> from the different reviews and studies.
>

Thanks, Rafik. I'll keep a watch on their work! Good exchanging with you!

>
> Best Regards
>
> Rafik Dammak
>
> @rafik
>
>
>> ALAIN BERRANGER, NCSG/NPOC
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
>>> Avri
>>> Doria
>>> Sent: Friday, 30 September 2011 5:21 p.m.
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Subject: Question 3: Issues over the next years
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Avri
>>>
>>> Question 3: What do you foresee as the most important issue for the NCSG
>>> during the next year.  2 years?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>> www.schulich.yorku.ca
>> Trustee, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
>> Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>> Skype: alain.berranger
>>
>>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Trustee, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111013/6af4c9d3/attachment-0001.html>