gTLD for developing regions was Re: [] knitters needle

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Avri,


>
> 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.
>

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.


>
> 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.
>

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.
I am not yet thinking about cross-community working group :)


>
> 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).
>

I guess that is close to what you proposed for JAS, something that we can
develop and improve,

Rafik


>
> avri
>
>
> On 4 Jul 2012, at 11:14, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> > 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/20120705/2b1620f9/attachment-0001.html>