[governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement

Fri Jul 29 04:56:44 EDT 2011

Imran,

Good input on the subject, We must all discuss the more in this important
forum / List

Regards


2011/7/29 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>

> >1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest,
> including one or more of the following characteristics****
>
> > Service in an under‐served language, the presence of which on the
> Internet has been limited****
>
> ** **
>
> One more question arises that how the applicant would be able to show the
> revenue (or ROI) if the scope of the service (new gTLD) in being
> demonstrated to the area of “Under-served” language, where the Internet has
> been limited? How the commitment or financial analysis be provided to pay
> back the fee of US$25K per annum.****
>
> ** **
>
> >3. The Application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: **
> **
>
> >• A TLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark (ie. a "dot
> brand" TLD) ****
>
> >• A string that is, or is based on, a geographic name****
>
> ** **
>
> One more question arises that why it is being proposed to exclude the
> trademark holders of the Developing Economies to be granted with the
> compensation in the fee and other relaxation, do they are getting the
> commercial earning equal to the brands/trademark holders of the Developed
> Economies? Similarly, it is also proposed by JAS WG that applicants from the
> Developing Economies (and prospective beneficiaries of the compensation) may
> not able to choose the geographic name, why? Just, to leave the options of
> geographic name for the richest economies? Again would referred to the
> comments recorded against above points (1) of under-served language -
> digitally divided corners of the globe will not be able to get benefit from
> the actual theme, the basic concept of the equal opportunities for everyone.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> P.S. It seems to leave the business opportunities of geographical gTLDs for
> the M+M and Neustar and TLDH.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2011 11:36 AM
> *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Imran Ahmed Shah'
> *Cc:* 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; 'ivarhartmann at gmail.com';
> 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org'
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for
> IGC Statement****
>
> ** **
>
> May I have some additional comments to finalize the following statement for
> the support of “developing economies” in new gTLD Program.****
>
> May I have some response from the coordinators, please?
> Thanks****
>
> Imran Ahmad Shah****
>
> *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Imran Ahmed Shah
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:24 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Cc:* 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; ivarhartmann at gmail.com;
> imran at uisoc.org; imran at igfpak.org
> *Subject:* [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC
> Statement****
>
> ** **
>
> IGC CS Members,****
>
> ** **
>
> Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet
> infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN’s Board resolution # 20
> of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding
> participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies
> of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension
> of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business
> user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc).****
>
> ** **
>
> Reference context is the abstract from ICANN’s following Resolution (#20)
> of Nairobi Meeting:****
>
> "...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants
> requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs."****
>
> ** **
>
> Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations
> (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in
> late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010 (
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pdf)
> and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but
> after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were
> submitted from Africa.
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm****
>
> ** **
>
> The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that “…all of
> the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors,
> leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing
> country entrepreneurs…”.****
>
> ** **
>
> Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report
> (Revised ver. 13 May 2011
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11-en.pdf),
> which deals with a very important issue: “How can ICANN assist applicants
> from developing economies increase their participation in the new generic
> Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?”. The public comments period will be
> closed on 29th July 2011.****
>
> ** **
>
> Previous discussion thread title subject were “RE: [governance] Details on
> the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was…” and “Re: [] Can Icann really be
> necessary?”.****
>
> ** **
>
> This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking
> for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other
> members.****
>
> ** **
>
> <previous successful experience about ICANN’s Policy Development through
> different forums including the ICANN’s main source to listen “Public
> Participation through Public Comments”>****
>
> ** **
>
> “With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced
> them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full
> funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to
> convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as
> well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I
> insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that
> instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and
> Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets
> and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a
> fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and
> text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD
> mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN’s
> end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched,
> fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were
> also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request
> for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has
> developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the
> countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic
> Diversity on Internet. (Imran)”****
>
> ** **
>
> <The main abstract of above discussion threads will be included here>.****
>
> ** **
>
> <new review comments on milestone reports may please be added here:****
>
> <review on 1st milestone report>****
>
> <review on 2nd milestone report>****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Thanking you and Best Regards****
>
> ** **
>
> Imran Ahmad Shah****
>
> Executive Member & Founder****
>
> Urdu Internet Society/ Council****
>
> Internet Governance of Pakistan****
>
> ** **
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On
> Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: []
> Can Icann really be necessary?****
>
> ** **
>
> In message <700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on
> Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> writes****
>
> ** **
>
> >- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure.****
>
> > Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD.****
>
> ** **
>
> I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75%
> discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding
> it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage.****
>
> --****
>
> Roland Perry****
>
> ____________________________________________________________****
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:****
>
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org****
>
> To be removed from the list, visit:****
>
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing****
>
> ** **
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:****
>
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance****
>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:****
>
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/****
>
> ** **
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t****
>


-- 
Asif Kabani
Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com


“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110729/5eb20ceb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t