gTLD for developing regions was Re: [] knitters needle

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Avri,

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.

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.
I guess that we need on work on that,
and still work to be done for support applicant for second round if there
is,

Best,

Rafik Dammak
@rafik
"fight for the users"



2012/7/4 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

> Hi,
>
> This is something worth working on.
>
> 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.
>
> I think that the developing region applications are obviously a category
> that was not sufficiently included.
>
> 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:
>
> - whether a next round should be constrained across some but not all
> categories
> - if so, which categories
>
> It might be good to start figuring out if we, as NCSG collectively, or
> [NCUC, NPOC] separately, have viewpoints on such issues.
>
> avri
>
> PS: I love the way threads wander and morph in a living list.
>
> On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:15, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Is Africa, really, part of ICANN? the 'reveal' showed that 99.99 per
> cent of
> >> new gTLDs were from outside Africa which only managed to submit a palty
> 0.88
> >> per cent of the 1930 applications. As developed economies IP industry
> and
> >> brand owners entrench themselves deeper on ICANN, we're wondering,
> what's
> >> wrong with this model for Africa?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Alex, not just Africa, developing countries/region generally. Also
> > equal lack of applicants from Latin America and Caribbean, and
> > majority of Asia Pacific.
> > <http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus>
> >
> > Plenty of applications from the Asia Pacific when taken across the
> > whole region, but only from the developed markets (China and India in
> > the ICT sector can be classed as developed.)
> >
> > Failure of outreach, or just a reflection of economics. NCSG should
> > talk with the GAC about this.  GAC's quite animated, complained to the
> > board.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Alain Berranger <
> alain.berranger at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Avri,
> >>>
> >>> It is clear to me too that NCUC/pre NPOC NCSG is a community of some
> kind
> >>> - I just don't quite grasp its essence yet, but what is sure is that I
> don't
> >>> yet feel part of it.
> >>>
> >>> Looking back to Prague, at no times were any of the 5 NPOC members
> there
> >>> made to feel full members of that community. For instance, at your own
> dot
> >>> gay event at the sky bar, all NCUC members present were invited, but
> not a
> >>> single NPOC member was invited. When NCSG EC had informal gatherings,
> never
> >>> once were NPOC members included. That said, NPOC members there did not
> lack
> >>> social interaction with other Constituencies.
> >>>
> >>> Yes Avri, you and I agree on the need for an NCUC email list for the
> NCUC
> >>> community.. Keeping NCSG list for building the new NCSG community made
> out
> >>> of both NCUC and NPOC members.
> >>>
> >>> Alain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry to hear that.
> >>>> It is part of what makes us a community instead of just a SG.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would have enjoyed hearing your voice as well.
> >>>> Though I guess I just did.
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW:  I still think we need an announce list of the news and only the
> >>>> news for those members whole don't like all the touchy feely group,
> aka
> >>>> unprofessional, participation.  I would like the NCSG EC to
> reconsider its
> >>>> decision from last year not to create such a list.
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:13, Michael Carson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whoever is in charge of adding/removing email addresses to this
> >>>>> listserv, I am requesting that my email address be removed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This sort of exchange is fruitless, a waste of time and
> unprofessional.
> >>>>> This is not the first time I have received these types of email
> exchanges.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, please remove my email address.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Michael Carson
> >>>>> YMCA of the USA
> >>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120705/6caef026/attachment-0001.html>