Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
in relation with your question, let me first point this paragraph from ICANN
Web page, by Rod Beckstrom:

"The Affirmation broadens ICANN's reporting commitment to the entire global
Internet community, and it cements the ICANN multi-stakeholder bottom-up
model. A series of reviews embodied in the Affirmation will help ensure a
high degree of public, global accountability throughout the ICANN
community."

The origin of the AOC and its own process must be found in the World Summit
of Information Society in its two phases, Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005, where
one of the major debates was related witht the role of the USA and its
relationship with ICANN. Then within the WGIG and the IGF the whole Internet
communty, and ICANN have realized the relevance of involving "the entire
global internet community".

Having said so, geographic diversity becomes relevant, and giving the
constrains that developing countries find in participating, I would say that
not only regional diversity is important but a fair representation of the
developing world. We should remember that in the Development Agenda of the
United Nations ICTs and Internet are considered a "leapfrog from
development".

Gender balance is also always desirable.

This does not mean that not qualified candidates should be endorsed just
because they match the regional diversity requirement.

There are many excellent potential candidates that can meet the regional
diversity criteria, who also have the necessary qualifications. Also from
developing countries, and some  of them are women.

Regards
Olga





2010/2/6 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  Let me make sure I understand Rafik.  Are you saying that geographic
> diversity should trump all other requirements?  In other words,The
> Affirmation broadens ICANN's reporting commitment to the entire global
> Internet community, and it cements the ICANN multi-stakeholder bottom-up
> model. A series of reviews embodied in the Affirmation will help ensure a
> high degree of public, global accountability throughout the ICANN community.
>
> Olga and Zahid - Because you agreed with Rafik's point, I would appreciate
> it if each of you would respond to the above question as well.
>
> Rafik - You did not answer my question: "How would you suggest changing the
> process?"
>
> We have an extremely short timeframe.  When anyone disagrees, it would
> really help if a specific alternative was provided.
>
> Chuck
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:12 AM
>
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO endorsement
> of AoC Review Team Volunteers
>
>  Hi Chuck,
>
> I don't think that we can compromise in that point as the ongoing
> internationalization of ICANN is critical and I guess that is subject to
> accountability too.
> with a real constraint, we may urge SGs to involve their members from
> less-represented regions.
> the same case may happen somehow for gender balance too.
>
> Regards
>
> Rafik
>
> 2010/2/4 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>  Thanks Rafik.  How would you suggest changing the process?  The proposed
>> wording is: "No more than two volunteers should come from the same
>> geographical region."  The key word is "should"; that was intentional
>> because if there are not qualified, volunteers from enough geographic
>> regions, what would we do?  The goal would be to not have more that two from
>> any one region, but that may not be achievable.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:03 AM
>>
>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
>> *Cc:* gnso-arr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Some ideas for a process for GNSO
>> endorsement of AoC Review Team Volunteers
>>
>>
>>  Hi Chuck,
>>
>>
>>    "have less than three geographic regions represented. ".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am uncomfortable with this point because in practice some regions wasn't
>> enough represented and this will allow the status quo for RT.
>>
>> if it is not late, no objection for extension.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> rafik
>>
>>
>