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

[Maria Farrell]

I support Chuck's approach also,

Maria

Sent from my iPhone

> On 11 Dec 2013, at 08:20, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info> 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 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/20131211/557891ef/attachment.html>