All, In response to Bill’s question let me take a first whack at a short response with respect to only the DNS part of the resource flow out of developing to developed countries. This is separate from payments to ISPs, for websites, and for website applications. For each individual domain name owner the revenue flow goes to the registrar, part on to the registry, and part on to ICANN. While there are registrars in developing countries, limited information suggests that most registrations use developed country registrars and gTLDs owned by developed country registries. [/Many are also hosted on developed country web servers, an additional outflow/] There is some information at the recently released “/*Phase One Registrant Survey on the Domain Name Landscape*/” from ICANN at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-25-en. So, a part of each and every annual domain name registration fee flows out of developing countries and goes to registrars and registries in developed countries. This outflow would diminish as more gTLDs are managed by developing country registries, as domain names are sold by more developing country registrars [/and as more websites are hosted locally/]. Developing country registrars have been quite vocal at ICANN meetings about the fact that ICANN conditions imposed on registry contracts with registrars are particularly burdensome in a developing country context. For the most part such concerns have not been addressed. Sam L, Chair NPOC Policy Committee /On 30/09/2015 9:48 AM, William Drake wrote:// / > /Hi/ > / > / > /Since the board may ask otherwise, you might want to say exactly what > is meant by "There is a net transference of resources taking place > from the developing to the developed world in the DNS industry.”/ > / > / > /Cheers/ > / > / > /Bill/ > >> On Sep 30, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> 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 > > ********************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists), > www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org> > /Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap /http://goo.gl/sRR01q > ********************************************************* > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852