Hi Avri, > > The one on RAA is critical as this is s till under discussion. Perhaps > you can develop that theme into a comment that NCSG/[NCUC, NPOC] can > endorse. > Thank you Avri, I like NCSG way to volunteer each other ;), I think that is better if I start to draft something and share with NCSGers. I am not sure about the format, and should we include it in a letter/comment to detail NCSG position regarding RAA, something to coordinate with efforts started by Wendy. > > Some of the other topics are long term, but perhaps we can figure out ways > to work on them over the longer term, so at the right time we are ready to > contribute well developed proposals. > indeed, long-term work,a kind of strategic planning we have to think about and also to allow enough time to outreach the different SG of the community. I am not yet thinking about cross-community working group :) > > I think helping local populations create RSPs and Rrs in developing > regions is one of the key means of raising the capacity of developing > regions and one of the ways to insure there are qualified applicants ready > to take on the challenge of applying for new registries without needing to > chain themselves to incumbent RSPs and Rrs (ie yet another variant of > cyber-colonialism). > I guess that is close to what you proposed for JAS, something that we can develop and improve, Rafik > > avri > > > On 4 Jul 2012, at 11:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi Avri, > > > > while we can continue the work about new gTLD program, we should also > cover another topic which is about having more registrars from developing > countries to serve users there. we had such discussion when we presented > the JAS 2nd milestone report last year and we had same comments again > during ICANN meeting in prague. there are some particularities and issues > like payments methods (yes credit card is not something common), pricing > etc which limit the access to domains to registrants especially individuals > from developing countries. new gTLD could fix some problems with more > community-based registries and benefiting the more relaxed vertical > integration rules, but ICANN missed such opportunity. > > > > I am also wondering if the new RAA with new provisions creates de facto > new economic and technical barriers to new entrants from developing > regions and only benefits to incumbents (what about competition and > anti-trust?) while possible provisions like validation and verification > won't encourage those incumbents registrars to operate in Africa for > example. For RAA negotiations, that can be another point to work on it in > addition to our concerns about privacy, FoE and anonymity. All these are > good to question the public interest task for ICANN and its role to > encourage real competition and diversity for the benefit of registrants > like non-commercial with more operators serving their communities. > > I guess that we need on work on that, > > and still work to be done for support applicant for second round if > there is, > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik Dammak > > @rafik > > "fight for the users" > > > > > > > > 2012/7/4 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > > 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 > > >>>>> > > >