[NCUC-DISCUSS] New gTLD program auctions

[William Drake]

GNSO proposed early engagement at the San Francisco meeting in March 2011.  Good to see a response!

Bill


On Dec 3, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
> 
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> 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 ?
> 
> One effort in that direction is a joint GNSO Council/GAC Working group (just launched) with 6 members of each to start discussing GAC early engagement in the PDP. Our first call is scheduled to be next Friday (December 6th). This is obviously not a typical WG, but just an attempt to see how to get GAC more involved in the PDP at earlier stages as opposed to (or in combination with) giving the ICANN Board “Advice”.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131203/50cfc211/attachment-0001.html>