gTLD for developing regions was Re: [] knitters needle

[Adam Peake]

adding to Avri's comment:

3 applicants have applied for support.  They are for the strings:

 .UMMAH, based in Gambia
 .KIDS, based in Hong Kong
 .IDN, based in India

Gambia and India developing countries (although in the ICT sector it's
hard to think of India as developing.)  The applications from Hong
Kong is from an association of young people, under the age of 18.  All
3 were from people who have been very involved with the ICANN process
(or to be fair, KIDS is supported/advised by a group very involved in
ICANN.)

More information from
<http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus> and
 <http://www.dotwhat.co/>

Why so few applications from developing countries?  Possibly lack of
outreach, lack of general awareness of the new gTLD program in
developing countries. Lack of awareness of the domain name market (but
there are quite a few domain name resellers)  If people didn't know
about the program, then they couldn't have ideas.  Plenty of
innovation in developing markets. And VC funds. Why do few
applications is something a few people think needs studying.

Setting up a registry is much more costly than just the applications
fee, million or so dollars (million or a couple of million seems to be
the amount mentioned for most applications, perhaps some community
applications less.)

No, the new gTLD program probably didn't meet expectations as far as
encouraging domain name infrastructure on developing countries

Best,

Adam



On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu)
<nmutungu at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am following a discussion on the same at a local IGF (Kenya IGF). Forgive
> my questions because sometimes ICAAN is complicated but I would like to
> understand:
> a) did anyone apply for the "aided" application that is supposed to be
> cheaper?
> b) if yes, were these from developing countries?
> c) if these "aided "applications were few, just like those from developing
> countries, really, why is this so?
> d) and thinking aloud, did these applications even achieve the initial
> intention? is there an alternative to this system or have we(developing
> countries) been left behind in the next revolution?
>  thanks!
>
>
> 2012/7/6 klaus.stoll <klaus.stoll at chasquinet.org>
>
>> Dear Friends
>>
>> Greetings. I am very happy that the topic of registrars from developing
>> countries has come up as it is indeed very important. Here are my current
>> five cents worth.
>>
>> First of all it is not just a numbers game, it is not important how many
>> registrars from a developing region, but their overall quality of them and
>> who they in fact represent. Secondly, we need to look what is going wrong
>> inside our ICANN box that seems to keep registrars from developing regions
>> out. So what I means we need to look inward and outward at the same time on
>> this topic.
>>
>> Secondly we need to look for opportunities to change the situation and I
>> think given the scope and mandate of ICANN I think here we need to look also
>> outside the ICANN plate to get the situation resolved.
>>
>> As ED of GKPF and as a NPOC member I want to be practical and offer our
>> existing infrastructure and contacts towards this cause, in particular as
>> this is a clear win/win situation for all involved as this allows us to
>> serve our members better.
>>
>> 1. Talking about members: GKPF has a number of African region members and
>> I am happy to use our contacts to get the message through and get things
>> going, but it would be up to us all what the message is and what the action
>> would be. (BTW, GKPF has also good contacts to other developing regions
>> which can be used.
>>
>> 2. GKPF is involved with the Annual Innovation Africa Digital Summit which
>> reaches all of Africa and on a particular governmental and industry level.
>> (Last year the .Africa Applicants made a big splash at the meeting in
>> Addis). I am more hen happy to get talks going with the organizers to see
>> what can and should be done, but again, first we need a plan.
>>
>> 3. GKPF is the chair of the Program and Content Committee of the upcoming
>> Computer Online Protection Conference Africa 2013 ,(together with ITU).
>> There might be some synergies that could be exploited.
>>
>> 4. WSIS. The WSIS preparation for the WSIS Forum in 2013 is just starting
>> and GKPF hopes to play a large role in it. I think the WSIS process is one
>> of the ways to get things done.
>>
>> These are my first initial thoughts. I hope that you accept my challenge
>> and that we can start working on concrete things with concrete results in
>> and outside and through the ICANN box.
>>
>> I also want to let you know that I was extremely saddened by some of the
>> comments made about GKPF at Prague as a organization non existent and
>> irrelevant. Yes, GKP took a 2 year “time out” to reinvent itself as GKPF and
>> has come out of the process the better and stronger and as I said it is very
>> sad to hear people holding it against us that we did the not popular but the
>> right thing.
>>
>> In the hope that you found the above helpful.
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Klaus
>>
>> From: Rafik Dammak
>> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:52 AM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: Re: gTLD for developing regions was Re: [] knitters needle
>>
>> 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
>>> > >>>>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Grace L.N. Mutung'u (Bomu)
> Kenya
> Skype: gracebomu
> Twitter: GraceMutung'u (Bomu)
>