On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:07 PM, McTim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> That said, I do not mean to support monopolies as "the one true way"
>> to lowest prices. I also look forward to a model that optimises on
>> competition at registries level without proposing that all *everyone*
>> becomes a registry paying $$ to ICANN. I've just been re-informed DAG
>> (v3) will be out before 24th Oct.
>
> Do you mean "registrar" here and not "registry"?
>
Registrars pay their registries whom then pay ICANN..My extrapolation
meant to extended and illustrate, for example, all registrars now also
becoming registries paying directly to ICANN.
>
> Add censored links and the problem gets compounded. Telcos/ISPs in
> such regimes may sprinkle some own private net access controls then
> blame it on 'complicated' new gTLDs meanwhile.

> Can you give an example of this behavior?

To avoid what may seem accusing states, perhaps "Keeping the Internet
Open: Expression Collides with Control" video mentions how censorship
takes place at the ISPs level.
<http://current.com/items/88795904_keeping-the-internet-open-expression-collides-with-control.htm>
( Disclosure: I am among those interviewed by Elon University School
of Communications)

> Are you talking about a SiteFinder like system?

Conceptually, SiteFinder is a great initiative. One that open up
increased mobile innovation and considering also that it is founded on
Freedom of Information legislation. Unfortunately, many countries e.g.
Kenya do not have FOI legislations therefore governments and
institutions with the colour of the law and corporate entities of
great public interest never disclose important information to the
public.(We have been lobbying for FOI since 2000 and has been the
global Freedom of Information week)

>> Add IPv4 exhaustion in 731 days ( see counter at
>> http://www.ipv6forum.com/). I think ICANN needs us more than we need
>> them. They should be on bended knees pleading with NCUC's Civil
>> Society to help them innovate on advocacy for IPv6 integration e.g.
>> "expanded online expression spaces", "unlimited IP address for
>> everyone in the world" etc.
>
> There is an ASO within ICANN that does this.  I am sure that any
> efforts we could make would be welcome, but I doubt that anyone will
> go down on their knees begging us to help out in this regard.
>
Although my remark was really on a light note, thanks for the info.
You have pointed us to an direction NCUC could walk towards in
extending our welcome efforts thus the need for our greater
representation also at higher ICANN levels;)

>> Any study on the impact of proceeding with both "full-scale" vs.
>> internet stability?
>
> yes
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18sep09-en.htm
>

Thank you McTim.

Sincerely,

Alex