ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] GNSO Council Response to the Geographic Regions WG Recommendations

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] GNSO Council Response to the Geographic Regions WG Recommendations
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:03:35 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac71/Ayb65IdruOEQ9eLvuR02JgDjQ==
  • Thread-topic: GNSO Council Response to the Geographic Regions WG Recommendations

Here's a suggested outline for a GNSO Council Response to the Geographic 
Regions WG Recommendations:

1.       Thank the WG for their considerable and thorough work.

2.       Acknowledge a few key points that we strongly support, for example:

a.       Executive Summary item 7 - ". . provide flexibility to individual 
communities and structures within ICANN . . . " by permitting them to: follow 
the same framework as the Board, or develop their own mechanisms (with Board 
oversight) for ensuring geographic diversity within their own organizations."

b.      Executive Summary Item 8 - ". . . Staff should also develop and 
implement a process to permit stakeholder communities in countries or 
territories to pursue, if they wish, re-assignment to a geographic region that 
they consider to be more appropriate for their jurisdiction."

3.       Call attention to any points about which we have questions, for 
example:  Executive Summary Item 9 - ". . the Working Group recommends that 
ICANN seek ways to recognize and accommodate Special Interest Groups to promote 
the interests and unique attributes of stakeholder communities that may not 
clearly fit into the formal top down regional structures. These "bottom-up" 
groupings would be complementary to the formal regional framework, and would 
not replace it. They would not form any part of ICANN's decision-making 
structure but would be free to lobby for the support of elected 
representatives. "   Some clarification of what is meant by the last sentence 
would be helpful.  Assuming we understand the intent, we would suggest that 
such groups work within existing structures as much as possible to communicate 
their concerns.

I think this would be much better than saying "no response".  This version 
includes some edits in item 3 that were suggested by an RySG participant.

"This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that 
is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure 
under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender 
immediately and delete this message immediately."

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>