"To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the 
participation of developing country stakeholders?" - ICANN has not.

I  would not know easily identifiable examples.

The closes I can think of is - by implication - "geographical diversity" 
rules. But these too do not apply on every aspect of ICANN's work.

When it comes to the use of languages - if you are in a part oft the 
world where the language is NOT English (or, in some cases French or 
Spanish), it is difficult even to share some of ICANN's hot topics, 
because they are formulated in quite a different context. - I am not 
pleading that everything should be translated into every language. But 
the way in which discussions develop should consider the wider context - 
including "far away" countries - that is far away form the sophisticated 
environments where ICANN mostly acts.

One example: When the discussion was going on in recent weeks about the 
possible membership in  NCSG-NCUC of an organization which has "non 
profit status" in some countries, but is representing a membership which 
is to a good extent for-profit, it was almost impossible to explain the 
case in our context. And this is not for linguistic reasons, but for the 
general context of refined or simple legal arrangements.

I have since a long time given up to explain the development of the 
several stages of handbook drafts for new TLDs - after starting, the 
response is quickly: "But this is obviously not for us."

Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh/Cambodia






On 3/1/2011 7:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Dear people,
>
> I have expressed my concern to the organizers regarding one of the
> panels of the NCUC event "NCUC@ICANN: Internet Governance&  the Global
> Public Interest Policy Conference" (The Westin St. Francis Hotel, San
> Francisco, Friday, Mar 11 2011 8:30 AM ):
>
> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html
>
> The panel in question is the following:
>
> ---------------------------
> [ 10:45 - 12:00 ]  Developing Countries and Global Internet Governance
>
> To what extent has ICANN addressed the unique concerns and promoted the
> participation of developing country stakeholders? How do developing
> country governments' experiences with and attitudes toward ICANN affect
> the larger geopolitics of Internet governance, such as their continuing
> pressure in the United Nations for a new intergovernmental body that
> would have "oversight" of ICANN? What do these dynamics mean for the
> global public interest, and for the priorities of noncommercial users?
>
> William Drake, University of Zurich, and NCUC GNSO Councilor (session
> chair)
> Avri Doria, Luleå University of Technology, and NCSG Chair
> Rafik Dammak, University of Tokyo, and NCSG GNSO Councilor
> Markus Kummer, Internet Society and former Executive Coordinator of the
> UN's Internet Governance Forum
> ---------------------------
>
> The full program can be retrieved here:
>
> http://www.amiando.com/ncucaticann.html?page=488184
>
> My concern is that it is unbalanced regarding the expressions of the
> "developing countries". If you share this concern, could you help
> suggesting more names from the South which could be added (if the
> organizers agree, of course), and who will certainly be in San Fran by
> March 11th?
>
> I understand it should be a person who is closely
> following/participating in the international IG debate from civil
> society's perspective.
>
> Just in case, I am out of question as I am not following the
> issues/events/processes as closely as I should. Some very good people (I
> can think of Alice from Kenya) will not arrive on time. Not sure about
> Alex Gakuru's schedule though -- just to give a few examples of names.
>
> It may help to take a look at the current list of registered participants:
>
> https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A
>
> Or maybe I am way out of my "jurisdiction" here... :)
>
> []s fraternos
>
> --c.a.