[NCUC-DISCUSS] New gTLD program auctions

Tue Dec 3 08:29:53 CET 2013

Dear All fellows, Good morning from Pakistan,

With reference to the subject, first of all I would speak about the method of Auction, which is chosen to resolve the conflict of interest among new gTLDs name scripts if qualified applicants are more then one. During the policy development process by JAS WG, we have opposed it and recorded reservation in public interest.

 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-jaswg-second-milestone-report-18oct11-en.pdf
The BC opposes
the recommendation that qualified applicants receive a partial refund from any
auction proceeds. To give one applicant an advantage over any other by
providing discounts for various parts of the review process is antithetical to
ICANN’s impartiality. Once an application is submitted, each and every
applicant must face the same processes and costs established in the AG to
ensure a fair and equitable procedure. BC (29 July 2011).

UISOC has no
comments on this because it does not agree with auction or bidding as a
solution for resolving conflicts. 
UISOC (4 Aug. 2011).

The selection of "AUCTION", means selling something to highest bidder. Normally auction is proceed once the product is launched, but in this case auction set up is being organised to sell the rights to have the registry of new gTLD name-script. ICANN is a non-profit, but it will be getting arranging pre-sales auction. So, we disagree with this selection of Auction option because in this case the proponents of the new gTLD application will become looser in getting their rights even when they were qualified all the processes successfully because of any one of the richest giant. Its again losses confidence of having open parallel and equal opportunities for everyone. Whereas, the other solution could be shared registry model where all the qualified applicants of the same name script would have the equal rights.

Now about the discussion of the distribution of the additional income/ earning from auction bidding, and balancing every processes in public or community interest, we have two questions:
1.does it requires only for a capacity building program to develop a coefficient for digestibilityof these funds?
2.what the name scripts of new gTLDS are being submitted for auction? how much out of them belongs to public interest, community support services, linguistic community support and/or from LDCs, LLDCs or Developing Economies. 

Once we have the answers of these questions, and statistical data Non Commercial Users community will be in better position to give any arguments.

Thanking you and Best Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah 
for Urdu Internet Society/ Council (UISoc)

>________________________________
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>To: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> 
>Cc: "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org" <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org> 
>Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2013, 8:58
>Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] New gTLD program auctions
> 
>
>
>Hi Marilia,
>
>
>regarding auctions, one of the proposal (mentioned again in Ba meeting by Avri) was to create an ICANN Foundation to manage those funds coming from auctions. That was suggested in the final report (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/22970578/Final_Report_JASWG+%28Sept+2011%29_Seth+created_Submitted.pdf) made by the joiny working on new gTLD applicant support or JAS and the board didn't pick-up that recommendation in that time . 
>
>
>it is also possible to add other existing funds not related to new gTLD program per se.
>
>
>Another option can be to support applicants from developing countries in second round of the new gTLD program (I would prefer those not having commercial interests to be supported) and working to make it more open and inclusive. Unfortunately, the applicant support was implemented too late for the first round in Jan 2012. 
>
>
>as Amr said, public interest can be broad and having several interpretations, we can see that on GAC advices to request content policy via TLD. However, for applicant support, we also found support from the GAC to the recommendation made by the WG.
>
>
>
>
>Best,
>
>
>Rafik
>
>
>2013/12/3 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>
>Hi Amr! I have no particular attachment to this expression, we can use whatever suits our discussion. Or we can avoid definitions and focus on concrete proposals of what to do with the revenues that would benefit the wider community. My point was just that revenues should not be entreasured by ICANN or be appropriated by private actors in the chain, but put to good use. What are the areas under ICANN's mandate in which additional resources could benefit non-commercial interests? Foster development of the Internet? That is what I am mulling over and would love to have company :)
>>
>>
>>Marília
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Marilia,
>>>
>>>
>>>I share your interest in this process and its outcome, however like you, am not as informed on it as I would like to be. Reading up on this is on my “to do” list, but I do have one observation:
>>>
>>>
>>>I personally have a problem with the term “public interest”. I do not believe there is a standard or agreed upon definition of the term. It is largely subjective as far as I can tell. If you ask a lawyer active in civil society work in Brazil what the public interest is, I doubt you will get the same response if you ask a state-security officer in Egypt (for example). Forgive me if I’m a bit touchy with the term. I’ve had some unpleasant experience with it in the past.
>>>
>>>
>>>If there has been a discussion on this list about the auctions, I have missed it. If NCUC does have a position or would like to adopt one, I hope we can agree on specific proposals on what we believe should be done with auction revenues, and not use abstract terms like “pubic interest”.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just a few thoughts, and as always, I am agreeable to being corrected.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>Amr
>>>
>>>On Dec 2, 2013, at 6:35 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am trying to understand better the new gTLD program auctions and, more specifically, to understand what are the feasible options to invest the revenue in a way that is public interest oriented and maybe development oriented as well. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Has NCUC reached a common position about the auctions? If not, I would like to join others who would be interested to focus on that. I am sorry if this topic has already been discussed on the list before I join. If so, I will search the archives.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is my understanding that a proposal from civil society with a public interest orientation could be supported by some govts as well. Actually, some have been looking for inputs on this matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance for any information you can share about this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Marília
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-- 
>>>>
>>>>Marília Maciel
>>>>Pesquisadora Gestora
>>>>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Researcher and Coordinator
>>>>Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>>>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>DiploFoundation associate
>>>>www.diplomacy.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>Marília Maciel
>>Pesquisadora Gestora
>>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>
>>
>>Researcher and Coordinator
>>Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>>
>>
>>DiploFoundation associate
>>www.diplomacy.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131202/d6d2fec7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss