[Wp3] Final Report by ICANN Geographic Regions Review Working Group

Sébastien Bachollet sebastien at bachollet.com
Wed Jul 8 16:13:53 UTC 2015


Hi Paul,
As you know
" the ICANN Board at its Public Meeting in Cairo (November 2008)7 ,
authorized the formation of the proposed working group. The Board
subsequently approved the Working Group¹s Charter on 26 June 2009. »

The world has change since 2008/2009 and even since the publication of the
final report of the WG in June 2013.
ICANN is doing SO/AC reviews within a certain time frame. The same for AoC
reviews.
This one (one of the few with global remit) as no timeframe.
It is time for the Board to act diligently on the improvement proposed in
this document.

But we may also add this review in the regular ones or add this issue as an
additional topic in another one already discuss (like ATRT for example).

Sébastien Bachollet
+33 6 07 66 89 33
Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com>

De :  <wp3-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Twomey
<paul.twomey at argopacific.com>
Date :  mercredi 8 juillet 2015 10:46
À :  <wp3 at icann.org>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>,
<pam.little at zodiac-corp.com>
Objet :  Re: [Wp3] Final Report by ICANN Geographic Regions Review Working
Group

>     
>  Hi Alice
>  
>  I would also note that the working group responded to the task it was given
> by the Board:   
>   
> 
> 
>  "The Working Group was formed by the Board to
>  
> (1) identify the different purposes for which ICANN¹s Geographic Regions are
> used; 
>  
> (2) determine whether the uses of ICANN¹s Geographic Regions (as currently
> defined, or at all) continue to meet
>  
> the requirements of the relevant stakeholders; and
>  
> (3) submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the
> current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Region"
>  
>  
> 
>  There was no real discussion of the global strategic challenges facing ICANN
> in a world where Internet activity and power is shifting dramatically away
> from the hubs of the late 1990s which underlie ICANN's present structures.
>  
>  
> 
>  The sections on page 15 talking about change in number of regions say to
> reduce the number would be too burdensome on travel for some members of the
> community and to increase them will increase the costs of the support.
> Hardly a strategic analysis.
>  
>  
> 
>  I think this issue is a very important one for the strategic viability of
> ICANN and for that matter the general acceptance of a single Root.
>  
>  
> 
>  Paul
>  
>         
>   
>  
>  
> On 7/8/15 8:01 PM, Pam Little wrote:
>  
>  
>>     
>>  
>> 
>> Hi Alice,
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> I have a couple of questions regarding this report.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 1.       The report is dated June 2013 and it refers to the ICANN Durban
>> meeting. Could you clarify what has been done since Durban?
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 2.       Your note mentioned: ³It is intended that the report will be
>> submitted to the Board prior to the Dublin meeting.² Could you clarify if the
>> following steps stated at para #87 on page 24 of the report have been
>> completed. If not, what are the time lines for those:
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> ³Before these recommendations can be formally transmitted to the ICANN Board,
>>  
>> the next step in this process consists of a final community review of the
>> Final
>>  
>> Report document and its recommendations by ICANN¹s various SO-AC structures.
>>  
>> Footnote 15 above outlines the specific process steps for this review and
>>  
>> consideration of the Working Group recommendations. The Working Group has
>>  
>> determined that community review should extend for a full 90 calendar days
>> after
>>  
>> the conclusion of the ICANN Public Meeting in Durban.²
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Thank you.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Pam Little
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> From: wp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice
>> Jansen
>>  Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 7:05 PM
>>  To: wp3 at icann.org
>>  Subject: [Wp3] Final Report by ICANN Geographic Regions Review Working Group
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Dear all,
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Further to the request made on call #1, please find below the link to the
>> Final Report prepared by ICANN Geographic Regions Review Working Group for
>> consideration by the ICANN Board (June 2013):
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13-
>> en.pdf 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> It is intended that the report will be submitted to the Board prior to the
>> Dublin meeting.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Please note that this document has been added to your WP3 reading list -
>> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Reading+List
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> May I also take this opportunity to inform you that three dedicated wiki
>> pages have been created for all three subgroups. These pages will be the
>> repositories for volunteers, documents and reading lists.
>>  
>>  
>> * Diversity - https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Diversity
>> * SO/AC accountability -
>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783727
>> * Staff accountability -
>> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Staff+accountability
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Kind regards
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Alice 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> wp3 mailing list
>> wp3 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3
>>  
>  
>  
> -- 
> Dr Paul Twomey
> Managing Director
> Argo P at cific 
> 
> US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
> Aust M: +61 416 238 501
> 
> www.argopacific.com <http://www.argopacific.com>
>  
> _______________________________________________ wp3 mailing list wp3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp3/attachments/20150708/5a8dd3b9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the wp3 mailing list