In case anyone is interested... --- Bruce Tonkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Subject: [gtld-council] RE: Forgotten issue in the new gTLD policy > discussion > Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:04:28 +1100 > From: "Bruce Tonkin" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > > Hello Mawaki, > > Thanks for raising this. This is part of the reason for holding > the > meeting this week - ie to identify what pieces have inadvertently > "dropped" out or need to be added in the current draft. As I > understood the plan was to add the material you produced on dealing > with > supporting developing countries under implementation guidelines > with > respect to approaches ICANN can consider to ensure appropriate > diversity > in applications. > > Lets discuss further in the committee on Friday when you are here. > > Regards, > Bruce > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [log in to unmask] > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2007 9:13 PM > > To: Council GNSO > > Subject: [council] Forgotten issue in the new gTLD policy > discussion > > > > Dear colleagues, > > Bruce, > > > > At the Amsterdam meeting, end of August 2006, while we were > > discussing the selection criteria of the new gTLD policy, our > > colleague Ken Stubb threw the idea of paying particular > > attention to the situation of developing countries. It > > followed a short exchange (notably with Marilyn Cade) and it > > sounded like a rough consensus that there was something to > > say or do about this question one way or the other. I tried > > to keep the ball rolling but the comittee didn't seem to have > > much time to pay further attention to this, so I posted a few > > proposals on the council list, calling for further > > consideration. After Amsterdam, apart from a few questions > > asked by Chuck Gomez to which I responded, there hasn't been, > > to my knowledge, further discussion of this issue. However, I > > note that all traces have disappeared altogether from the > > draft final report. > > > > If there was a discussion and a decision taken by the Council > > during a call that I missed, please be so kind to indicate to > > me the date of such call and/or direct me to the records and > > minutes of that meeting. > > > > Assuming such discussion by the Council has never taken > > place, I wish to submit to your attention the attached draft > > (hardly two pages, in plain text below) that I have prepared > > in order to enable us carry out that necessary discussion. > > > > Bruce, this is the last opportunity that I have to request > > you, as the Chair, to accommodate this discussion in the > > agenda of the upcoming meeting in Marina del Rey. Whatever > > the reality is, I think we can all face it through honnest > > and articulated arguments; it would be hard not to agree that > > shunning cannot be established as a way of forming policy. > > > > I am traveling tomorrow Thursday and will arrive at Marina > > del Rey only at the end of the day. I will attend the meeting > > from Friday, and I look forward to seeing you all again. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Mawaki > > ***** > > > > A. Background and Motivation > > > > The time has come for ICANN to take an aggressive turn toward > > a truly global governance of the Internet, ensuring further > > openness, diversity, and competition through its processes as > > well as by their outcomes. There clearly is a benefit as well > > as a cost, either symbolic, material or both, to be the > > authority that everybody in the industry looks at, and often > > relies on, at one level or the other. > > Just as it accepts the privilege (and benefit) to play such > > role, ICANN needs to accept to bear the related > > responsibility (or cost) toward the whole community, and this > > may have different flavors depending on the specific > > conditions of the different participant groups or regions, in > > connection with ICANN's business. > > > > For example, we need to realize that there is a huge cost to > > bear for a developing Non-English speaking country (and there > > are many such > > examples,) with regard to the conditions in which ICANN has > > conducted its business over the past decade. ICANN may well > > translate its public documents in several languages, it does > > not, however, process applications, negotiate or sign > > contracts other than in English and the related legal > > environment. ICANN takes decisions that impact the > > possibility of entry in the Internet industry and market. > > Though the Internet industry and market are global, not every > > potential player has had the same access to the information > > about market opportunities because of those linguistic and > > cultural shortcomings. Economists and Policy Analysts would > > identify this as a market failure by means of information > asymmetry. > > > > Indeed, the fact that ICANN's tools and processes for > > policy-making are in a specific language results in a loss > > for countries that are not in any position, at start, to be > > familiar with those tools and processes, neither to their > > cultural environment. For many, this means, among other > > things, 8 years or so lagging behind and even locked out of > > the industry. Those with poor or very limited institutional > > and economic development, in addition, are even worse off. As > > a result, it is once again those having less who still get > > less, falling farther behind, while paying the same market > > price as every one if not more because of their poor > > organization (cost of access, international bandwidth and > > interconnections, etc.) > > > > Obviously, setting application criteria that are tailored (or > based > > on) the performance of the most developed economies in the > > world equates to excluding the majority of the areas and people. > > > > Finally, in the global Internet community, there are vibrant > > groups of users technically capable of running a registry and > > willing to serve their grassroots communities on a voluntary > > basis. Experience has shown that a non-profit model of > > registry can work just as fine as the commercial model. > > > > For better or worse, the Internet is a global facility, but > > it shouldn't only be so from the demand and the user side, > > but also and genuinely from the operation and supply side as > > well. If we chose not to address the issues raised above, we > > will be sending a message of exclusion to the face of people > > who are concerned and eager to participate actively and > > responsibly on both ends and contribute to the promising > > expansion of this uniquely global network. > > > > B. Proposals for action > > > > Thus, I would like to call on the GNSO Council to consider > > and address the following issues in its PDP, and more > > generally, ICANN to initiate a phased process starting with > > the implementation of the current new gTLD policy being > > developed, in order to progressively achieve the following > > objectives in the near term: > > > > 1. Establish a capacity-building and support mechanism aiming > > at facilitating effective communication on important and > > technical Internet governance functions in a way which no > > longer requires all participants in the conversation to be > > able to read and write English. > > > > 2. Put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD applicants > > from developing economies, and make the financial and the > > operational threshold for market entry easier for those from > > less developed economies. > > > > 3. The ICANN gTLD application process should be able to > > receive and process applications in major languages other > > than English, and the documents needed to apply should be > > available in the > > six working languages of the United Nations. > > > > > > Drafted by Mawaki Chango > > GNSO Council Member > > February 21, 2007 > > > >