I agree with Elliot.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Alan

At 22/08/2017 01:02 PM, elliot noss wrote:

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
<
james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
> 
> So again from the peanut gallery I will add that internet
infrastructure is well outside of ICANNs remit. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone