On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu)
<
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am following a discussion on the same at a local IGF (Kenya IGF). Forgive
> my questions because sometimes ICAAN is complicated but I would like to
> understand:
> a) did anyone apply for the "aided" application that is supposed to be
> cheaper?
> b) if yes, were these from developing countries?
> c) if these "aided "applications were few, just like those from developing
> countries, really, why is this so?
> d) and thinking aloud, did these applications even achieve the initial
> intention? is there an alternative to this system or have we(developing
> countries) been left behind in the next revolution?
> thanks!
>
>
> 2012/7/6 klaus.stoll <
[log in to unmask]>
>
>> Dear Friends
>>
>> Greetings. I am very happy that the topic of registrars from developing
>> countries has come up as it is indeed very important. Here are my current
>> five cents worth.
>>
>> First of all it is not just a numbers game, it is not important how many
>> registrars from a developing region, but their overall quality of them and
>> who they in fact represent. Secondly, we need to look what is going wrong
>> inside our ICANN box that seems to keep registrars from developing regions
>> out. So what I means we need to look inward and outward at the same time on
>> this topic.
>>
>> Secondly we need to look for opportunities to change the situation and I
>> think given the scope and mandate of ICANN I think here we need to look also
>> outside the ICANN plate to get the situation resolved.
>>
>> As ED of GKPF and as a NPOC member I want to be practical and offer our
>> existing infrastructure and contacts towards this cause, in particular as
>> this is a clear win/win situation for all involved as this allows us to
>> serve our members better.
>>
>> 1. Talking about members: GKPF has a number of African region members and
>> I am happy to use our contacts to get the message through and get things
>> going, but it would be up to us all what the message is and what the action
>> would be. (BTW, GKPF has also good contacts to other developing regions
>> which can be used.
>>
>> 2. GKPF is involved with the Annual Innovation Africa Digital Summit which
>> reaches all of Africa and on a particular governmental and industry level.
>> (Last year the .Africa Applicants made a big splash at the meeting in
>> Addis). I am more hen happy to get talks going with the organizers to see
>> what can and should be done, but again, first we need a plan.
>>
>> 3. GKPF is the chair of the Program and Content Committee of the upcoming
>> Computer Online Protection Conference Africa 2013 ,(together with ITU).
>> There might be some synergies that could be exploited.
>>
>> 4. WSIS. The WSIS preparation for the WSIS Forum in 2013 is just starting
>> and GKPF hopes to play a large role in it. I think the WSIS process is one
>> of the ways to get things done.
>>
>> These are my first initial thoughts. I hope that you accept my challenge
>> and that we can start working on concrete things with concrete results in
>> and outside and through the ICANN box.
>>
>> I also want to let you know that I was extremely saddened by some of the
>> comments made about GKPF at Prague as a organization non existent and
>> irrelevant. Yes, GKP took a 2 year “time out” to reinvent itself as GKPF and
>> has come out of the process the better and stronger and as I said it is very
>> sad to hear people holding it against us that we did the not popular but the
>> right thing.
>>
>> In the hope that you found the above helpful.
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Klaus
>>
>> From: Rafik Dammak
>> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:52 AM
>> To:
[log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: gTLD for developing regions was Re: [] knitters needle
>>
>> 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
>>> > >>>>>
>>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Grace L.N. Mutung'u (Bomu)
> Kenya
> Skype: gracebomu
> Twitter: GraceMutung'u (Bomu)
>