Hi,

This is something worth working on.

While I was very much against working according to categories in this round, it was largely because I thought the categories were something emergent.  I don't think we all could have agreed on the set categories before.  But now we can. Or at least can come close.

I think that the developing region applications are obviously a category that was not sufficiently included.

As we start to think and plan for the next round, I think we could/should consider limiting it to categories, i.a. such as developing regions.  I beleive remediating failures in diversity etc should be one of the primary goals of the next round.  I expect that this may be a controversial perspective, perhaps even within NCSG, so it is going to take some discussion on:

- whether a next round should be constrained across some but not all categories
- if so, which categories

It might be good to start figuring out if we, as NCSG collectively, or [NCUC, NPOC] separately, have viewpoints on such issues.  

avri

PS: I love the way threads wander and morph in a living list.

On 4 Jul 2012, at 09:15, Adam Peake wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Is Africa, really, part of ICANN? the 'reveal' showed that 99.99 per cent of
>> new gTLDs were from outside Africa which only managed to submit a palty 0.88
>> per cent of the 1930 applications. As developed economies IP industry and
>> brand owners entrench themselves deeper on ICANN, we're wondering, what's
>> wrong with this model for Africa?
>> 
> 
> 
> Alex, not just Africa, developing countries/region generally. Also
> equal lack of applicants from Latin America and Caribbean, and
> majority of Asia Pacific.
> <http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus>
> 
> Plenty of applications from the Asia Pacific when taken across the
> whole region, but only from the developed markets (China and India in
> the ICT sector can be classed as developed.)
> 
> Failure of outreach, or just a reflection of economics. NCSG should
> talk with the GAC about this.  GAC's quite animated, complained to the
> board.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Alain Berranger <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Avri,
>>> 
>>> It is clear to me too that NCUC/pre NPOC NCSG is a community of some kind
>>> - I just don't quite grasp its essence yet, but what is sure is that I don't
>>> yet feel part of it.
>>> 
>>> Looking back to Prague, at no times were any of the 5 NPOC members there
>>> made to feel full members of that community. For instance, at your own dot
>>> gay event at the sky bar, all NCUC members present were invited, but not a
>>> single NPOC member was invited. When NCSG EC had informal gatherings, never
>>> once were NPOC members included. That said, NPOC members there did not lack
>>> social interaction with other Constituencies.
>>> 
>>> Yes Avri, you and I agree on the need for an NCUC email list for the NCUC
>>> community.. Keeping NCSG list for building the new NCSG community made out
>>> of both NCUC and NPOC members.
>>> 
>>> Alain
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry to hear that.
>>>> It is part of what makes us a community instead of just a SG.
>>>> 
>>>> Would have enjoyed hearing your voice as well.
>>>> Though I guess I just did.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW:  I still think we need an announce list of the news and only the
>>>> news for those members whole don't like all the touchy feely group, aka
>>>> unprofessional, participation.  I would like the NCSG EC to reconsider its
>>>> decision from last year not to create such a list.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> On 3 Jul 2012, at 11:13, Michael Carson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whoever is in charge of adding/removing email addresses to this
>>>>> listserv, I am requesting that my email address be removed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This sort of exchange is fruitless, a waste of time and unprofessional.
>>>>> This is not the first time I have received these types of email exchanges.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Again, please remove my email address.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Michael Carson
>>>>> YMCA of the USA
>>>>>