Hi everyone,

thanks for the ongoing discussion about developing countries issues with
regard to DNS industry. it is interesting to elaborate further the
different points of views and move to more concrete actions.

but for now we need to clarify and tweak the topic suggested below so we
can share them with the board and explain what we would like to know.

so we need rewording and phrasing those topics and their
descriptions/questions. I understand that Carlos is volunteering to do so
for one topic . we need  your suggestions here .

Best,

Rafik

2015-09-30 20:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi everyone,
>
> trying to summarize the topics suggested until now, I tried to capture
> comments as much as possible but maybe I missed things.
>
> - *Public Interest: *
> *"Can we ask the board how it is coming with its research in the "global
> public interest". In the annual mtg last where we asked the board about its
> understanding of the global public interest, how it determines, on what
> basis, etc.  At that time, the board said it was just getting started on
> compiling some research that it would share and had hired Nora.  So it
> would be great if we could have an update or further conversation on this
> concept, how it is determined and applies, etc."*
>
> there was several comments with that regard indicating that a research is
> ongoing and mostly done within ICANN, not looking outside . a consultation
> process is planned and starting in Q4 to get community input and continue
> till June 2016.
>
> -* Developing countries:*
> starting with the Nielsen report (
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-25-en)
> "Nielsen's report confirms that Latin America, Asia and Africa will likely
> be the great drivers of new gTLD acceptance and use, while most registries
> are still based in developed regions. There is a net transference of
> resources taking place from the developing to the developed world in the
> DNS industry. The problems that developing regions face have been
> extensively explained.  What is the perception of the board? In the opinion
> of board members, which concrete measures could be put in place? Why not
> even suggestions from the JAS report have been implemented yet? Would the
> board commit to a clear plan to address the current imbalances before a new
> round of applications is launched?"
>
> there was also comment that we can also ask the Global Domain Division
> (GDD) during a GNSO session . Others mentioned: knowledge imbalance,
> capacity building and remediation mechanisms of imbalance in next rounds
>
> about this issue, I would remind people that we got lately 3 reports in
> relation to that, it will be useful to go through them :
> - regarding next rounds
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-en
> - review on previous new gTLD round:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-draft-review-2015-09-23-en
> - assessment of new gTLD program with regard to competition:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/competitive-effects-assessment-2015-09-28-en
>
> - *Human Rights*
>
> "With the CCWP on HR we'll be publishing a new report on ICANN and
>
> human rights (comments still very welcome until Wednesday 30 23:59
>
> here: http://is.gd/gItc5W ). So perhaps we can ask ICANN about how
>
> they envisage living up to article 4 of the articles of incorporation
>
> and whether there are concrete plans to do or develop:
>
> 1. A human rights policy
>
> 2. A human rights impact assessment
>
> 3. A full corporate social responsibility strategy
>
> in order to live up to the existing commitments. And whether they are
>
> thinking of using the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human
>
> Rights for this. And of course: what is the timeline for this."
>
>
> I would like to add comment about developing countries and new gTLD
> program issue, there was a lot of work done by NCSG on that matter within
> GNSO and we succeeded in 2010 to get a joint working on new gTLD applicant
> support, with the active participation of several NCSG members.
>  A report  was delivered with several recommendations , some of them were
>  approved in 2011 by the board :
>
> - timeline for the working group is here
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2011/jas
>
> -  the report there
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/jas-final-report-2011-10-13-en
>
> - the  implementation is here
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support)
>
> the result of the implementation was satisfactory due partly that the
> program was implemented quite late when the new gTLD program itself was
> starting and there was no significant outreach to get more applicants from
> developing regions.
>
> The same issue concerns having more registrars from developing countries
> and there was last year  a consultation launched by ICANN staff
> https://community.icann.org/display/prjctgdduro/Project+Roadmap%3A+Supporting+the+Domain+Name+Industry+in+Underserved+Regions
> .
>
> I would conclude about this  that we should leverage those existing
> initiatives to go further and be effective.
>
>
> going back to the topics discussion, it still going on and we should tune
> and refine the topics and their descriptions. other suggestions are welcome
> too.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik Dammak
>
> NCSG Chair
>