<html>
<body>
I agree with Elliot.<br><br>
We certainly are not going to fund a new backbone network in a country,
but there are other things that are technically infrastructure that may
well be in our remit.<br><br>
I will give one example. I believe that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)
can make a crucial difference in strengthening a city or country's
Internet along with the potential to improve performance and
decrease costs. And with a low cost:benefit ratio.<br><br>
At least in Africa, and probably other parts of the developing world, IXP
are view by the local RIR as a critical part of building the regions's
capacity. And if something is strongly supported by an RIR, I believe it
implicitly is in ICANN's remit.<br><br>
I will address the overall subject in my next message, but I think it is
absolutely necessary that we do not limit ourselves purely by the name of
an area, but carefully see if we can link it to ICANN in a viable way to
ensure that we get the most benefit from these funds. <br><br>
If the only projects that we fund are things that ICANN could have done
itself if it had more money, then I believe we will miss a golden
opportunity to make a real difference.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 22/08/2017 01:02 PM, elliot noss wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><pre>this would be true if we
were talking about ICANN the corporation’s day-to-day operating
activities. it may not (and I hope is not) true with respect to the work
of this CCWG.
EN
> On Aug 22, 2017, at 11:24 AM, James Gannon
<<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds">
james at cyberinvasion.net</a>> wrote:
</i>>
</i>> So again from the peanut gallery I will add that internet
infrastructure is well outside of ICANNs remit.
</i>>
</i>> Sent from my iPhone</i></pre></blockquote></body>
</html>