[NCUC-DISCUSS] New gTLD program auctions

[Imran Ahmed Shah]

Dear All,
I support the proposal for semi-extant organizational teams, that could be a Working Group as well. 
I also invite members to express their intention, who like to join.

Regards


Imran

>________________________________
> From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
>To: "Adam Peake," <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 
>Cc: "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org" <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org> 
>Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2013, 13:40
>Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] New gTLD program auctions
> 
>
>Hi
>
>I suspect that the use of auction revenues to promote public interest / development objectives might be a point of some differences of view between our left/liberal (US def) and libertarian wings, but sure it’d be a good discussion to have.  
>
>Originally (Seoul 2009) we pitched the board on an integrated SG without constituencies, using easily formed and disbanded interest groups instead.  That obviously didn’t fly.  So then we had for awhile our own little informal interest groups when we had the ning site, which were easy for members to log on and start themselves, and a number were formed on different topics including development.  Unfortunately, few saw sustained discussion and action, and when we transitioned to the new NCUC website this functionality was dropped.  
>
>There’s no reason we can’t have something like this again, though.  It doesn’t have to be using a social networking function on the website (although I’d have preferred it).  If people want to form groups of the similarly interested or like minded on topics we could at least list them on the website like the semi-extant organizational teams and create listservs for them http://www.ncuc.org/participate/working-teams.  Or they could work in another space entirely like the Confluence wiki.  One way or the other, it would be good if NCUC could again serve as a platform for interested people to come together around specific policy issues that perhaps the whole members list wouldn’t want all the traffic on.
>
>Any interest in pursuing this?
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>> Might be a good idea to include such discussions in the strategic planning processes - both use of any auction revenue (though most auctions seem private) and any other money remaining from the new TLD program.  
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131203/33ac0b0b/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