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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
in the mail I just sent I made a mistake, it says:

"leapfrog from development".

and it should say:

"leapfrog for development".

Apologies.

Regards
Olga




2010/2/6 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>