I strongly agree with Alan. Although both NCUC and ALAC need to do a lot
more in terms of becoming truly representative of the diverse and very
extense scope of civil society (whose organizations in their turn should
be far more proactive in seeking this presence in the ICANN structure),
these are the in-house organizations we have to rely on.

fraternal rgds

--c.a.

Alan Levin wrote:

> I strongly support the ICANN strategy to support "Developing Country
> Internet Communities to enable further participation in the ICANN
> mission"
>
> Coming from a developing country I assure you that our interests are
> not sufficiently represented at ICANN and if ICANN (within a  narrow or
> wide scope) is to be held accountable for it's policies in any way, it
> must do more than it does now to ensure Developing Country Internet
> Communities are included in the process.
>
> That said, I am not convinced that this is for 'technical forums' or
> why the change in terminology is introduced. There is some excellent
> talent in developing countries that could be attracted as
> 'non-technical' members of the Internet community. So I am not in
> favour of the renaming.  I am concerned about a more narrow call for
> this to be purely for 'education' where outreach and communications are
> often interpreted as different to 'education' yet have great levels of
> impact. Maybe we can remove that first paragraph of section 2...
>
> The other elements of the current draft look like good points. Further,
> I am in support of channeling any digital inclusion funds either
> through the NCUC or the ALAC. I feel they are bottom up global
> organisations and that they need to be supported. By using these
> already established infrastructures, there should be reduction in
> duplication and increased efficiencies (as opposed to adding any
> further staff or structures to the current ICANN).
>
> Kind thanks and well done.
>
> aLan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Jan 2005, at 20:38, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>
>> Dear Milton Mueller,
>>
>>
>> I fully support all points you have made.
>> I hope your words could be truly our one voice as NCUC.
>>
>> Only one thing I want to be taken into account in your statement
>> regarding
>> new gTLD is that new registries should be geographically fairly
>> distributed - that was also our initial consensus among NCUC members at
>> the first round of new gTLD. Still there is no one gTLD registry in
>> Asia,
>> Africa and Latin American region.
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Chun
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> Competition and choice should definitely be a priority for ICANN. On
>>> new TLDs, we recommend replacing the term "predictable  strategy for
>>> selecting new TLDs" with "predictable process for responding to demand
>>> for new gTLDs." Seven years after  ICANN's creation, it should have
>>> more
>>> than a "strategy" regarding new gTLDs, it should have a well-defined,
>>> objective, and  transparent process for adding them. Those proposing
>>> new
>>> TLDs should know how many are available each year and what they  must
>>> do
>>> to qualify for one. They should also be assured of a fair, quick
>>> response to their proposals, rather than long, indeterminate, and
>>> untransparent private negotiations.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Chun Eung Hwi
>> General Secretary, PeaceNet |   fax:     (+82)  2-2649-2624
>> Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
>> Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   [log in to unmask]
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Alan Levin
> Tel: +27 21 409-7997
>
>
>

--

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
[log in to unmask]            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.8.2 - Release Date: 28/1/2005