[NCUC-DISCUSS] New gTLD program auctions

Tue Dec 3 16:13:22 CET 2013

Gosh, the latest 6 messages have just arrived all together at once... Sorry
for the lag in the conversation. I agree with Adam about involving regions.
What would be the best way to reach them? Is there a procedure for that,
like a joint GNSO/ALAC PDP? Or should we make bridges with the regional
strategic discussions, as suggested by Adam? Or both? Sorry for the many
questions, still on the learning curve here.
Cheers
Marília

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> Having the regional strategies involved in the discussion of allocation of
> revenues from the auctions to regional gTLD applicants is not a bad idea at
> all. The folks participating in these strategies should have more insight
> in their regional barriers to entering what has been called the “Domain
> Name Industry” than others, and could probably make their cases better.
>
> I am not personally especially happy with the progress made by the Middle
> East Strategy Working Group, but the effort being made there is sincere.
> For my part, I will bring up your suggestion there. I am not sure how it’ll
> work out though, since (if I’m not mistaken) the strategy is mandated to
> achieve its objectives within another two years. I don’t know if there will
> be a new round of gTLD applications by then. Still…, worth bringing up.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131203/f940ced4/attachment-0001.html>