[NCUC-DISCUSS] New gTLD program auctions

Tue Dec 3 13:16:39 CET 2013

Hi Adam,

I was asking if the GAC is discussing in how to participate early in policy
development process early and not having advices made at later stage. I was
not talking about Applicant support or funds per se

Best,

Rafik

2013/12/3 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>

> So there'll be a PDP?  Again, shouldn't something like this be coordinated
> across ICANN, part of the organization's strategic objectives?  If talking
> about a further tld program and developing countries, doesn't it make more
> sense to work that up through the African/LAC/AP regional strategies?  If
> thinking how auction and 'windfall' type funds can be used, again if the
> focus is development then let the regions work it out.
>
> Adam
>
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 8:36 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> > Hi Tracy,
> >
> > Thank you for this update. Interesting to see GAC members trying new
> approaches to work on advices. Was there any discussion on how GAC
> participate early in the stage of PDP ?
> > For JAS, I remember as co-chair of the WG in that time to approach GAC
> members to join us and we didn't fully succeed (I recall that you joined us
> and participated in calls). But we could find support on GAC communique
> later .
> >
> > regarding the input, did the GAC discuss on how to get it? are you going
> to follow the model of public comment period and let the community comment
> your deliverables?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2013/12/3 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
> > On a related note, the GAC has, as per its BA Communique, formally
> established a Working Group to examine (future) new gTLD issues ... one of
> which is Applicant Support and Developing Economies'
> (involvement/participation). A large percentage of the foundational input
> into this Working Group is based on an assessment of the implementation of
> the JAS Working Group recommendations as well as an assessment of the
> effectiveness of the final version of the Applicant Support Program.
> >
> > An initial position on the issue with the potential, based on wider GAC
> discussion, to move forward to formal GAC Advice is due in Singapore.
> >
> > I am certain that the inputs of the NCUC, among others, on this topic,
> will be VERY welcomed and immediately considered by the Working Group.
> > ------
> > Rgds,
> >
> > Tracy
> >
> >
> > On Dec 2, 2013 11:58 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/fcafea3e/attachment-0001.html>