[NCUC-DISCUSS] New gTLD program auctions

Tue Dec 3 13:34:40 CET 2013

Hi Olivier,

here the list of all GAC representatives, not sure it is regularly updated
https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Representatives

Rafik

2013/12/3 Olivier Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>

> 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/f114cb9d/attachment-0001.html>