[NCUC-DISCUSS] New gTLD program auctions

Wed Dec 18 02:34:21 CET 2013

Hi Marilia,

the comment period is about how auctions should be conducted and rules but
I dont think that is about the usage of the funds

Best,

Rafik

2013/12/18 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>

> The comment period about the topic opened today and goes until January
> 14th:
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/new-gtld-auction-rules-17dec13-en.htm
>
> Marília
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131218/ecb09d2d/attachment-0001.html>