[NCUC-DISCUSS] New gTLD program auctions

Tue Dec 3 13:23:45 CET 2013

Hi !

I have a question please.
How many Developing countries representatives (particuliarly from Africa)
are active members of GAC till now ?
We are talking about multistakerholderism ... Is it effective ?
Let me know please.
Cheers !
-Olevie-


2013/12/3 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>


-- 
Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net)
DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/)
SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
Po Box : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25
Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131203/1c1c83b7/attachment-0001.html>