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

[Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

I support Chuck's approach also,

Maria

Sent from my iPhone

> On 11 Dec 2013, at 08:20, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> All,
>  
> From a GNSO / GNSO Council perspective, I’d very much like us to submit 
> something rather than nothing on this one.
>  
> So … acknowledging that we are working up against the clock on this one as 
> (well as the ATRT2 comments) it will be good to get a submission agreed.
> We do have a little longer (the current deadline is 31 Dec 2013) but, if 
> possible, it will be good to get this one put to bed at Thursday’s meeting.
>  
> Therefore, please wade in with any improvements or support for the form of 
> words as drafted.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 10 December 2013 23:23
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Response to the Geographic Regions WG 
> Recommendations
>  
> i support this approach -- especially the last section.  
>  
> thanks,
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:03 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
>  
> Chuck
> “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.”
> 
>  
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>