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

[Jonathan Robinson]

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 at haven2.com] 
Sent: 10 December 2013 23:23
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
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 at verisign.com> 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.) 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20131211/2d7e60ae/attachment.html>