All,
Please see attached for the Council’s response to the request for feedback.
Many thanks to Chuck for providing the impetus to create a response
here. I am pleased we have done so.
Jonathan
*From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* 11 December 2013 08:20
*To:* 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Gomes, Chuck'
*Cc:* council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* RE: [council] GNSO Council Response to the Geographic Regions
WG Recommendations
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 <mailto: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
<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Here’s a suggested outline for aGNSO 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
<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook,
LinkedIn, etc.)