[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019

[Samantha Eisner]

?Thanks Sam.  This suggestion makes a lot of sense.


____

Samantha Eisner

Deputy General Counsel, ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, California 90094

USA

Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631

________________________________
From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 3:45 PM
To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Revised Proposed Final Report and Indicative Poll on Mechanisms - Deadline 3 December 2019

All,
As a development economist I want to raise a small point. The term "developing countries" is used nine times in the Draft. While the World Bank and others have dropped the term, it remains acceptable as a descriptor, but there may be a problem for its use here. In some instances disagreements could arise with regard to eligibility to apply based on what decides who is, or is not, a developing country.
Other settings now tend to use the formal term Low- and-Medium-Income-Countries (LMIC) where countries are classified by the World Bank (WB). Other organizations (UN, IMF, WHO, etc.) sometimes produce slightly different rankings.
I suggest that we either adopt LMIC, or state that the term developing countries means LMIC, or pick another reference list. We do not want a Mechanism to have to struggle, in some instances, with what is or is not a qualifying applicant country. (I note this still does not deal with occupied territories, breakaway states, and the other complexities of modern nationhood  :-(   )
Sam L.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20191122/95546981/attachment.html>