ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-geo-dg] ICANN regions - scope of GNSO work

  • To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-geo-dg] ICANN regions - scope of GNSO work
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:45:15 -0400

Thanks Philip.
Please note my responses below.


        From: owner-gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
        Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 8:08 AM
        To: gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-geo-dg] ICANN regions - scope of GNSO work
        As we start to find dates for this group perhaps we can agree on
line in advance on the scope and basis of our work ?
        Allow me to make some suggestions.
        ICANN regions and their relevance to the GNSO.
        (thus we do not need to comment on EVERY aspect of the CCSO
report or ALL implications for ICANN)
        [Gomes, Chuck] I agree with this. In my opinion, in the GNSO our
concern is less about the definition of the regions and more about the
geographical diversity requirements themselves. 
        If we agree to the above then for me we need to answer what do
we mean by relevance?
        The relevance of ICANN regions to the GNSO is as a means of
implementing diversity for:
        a) GNSO Council members[Gomes, Chuck]  This is the area where I
think our primary focus should be because this is where I believe the
greatest impact on the GNSO happens. 
        b) any one else eg Board ???[Gomes, Chuck]  I don't think this
is a big issue for us because we are only talking about two directors
from two different regions. 
        And perhaps we could also agree on some basic principles
relevant to the above?
        1. ICANN should avoid making geo-political judgements and so
where regions are relevant, refer to an authoritative third
party.[Gomes, Chuck]  This might be okay but, in reality, the world of
Internet names and numbers doesn't always map well to other
geo-political divisions.  Imposing some third party's regional
definitions may or may not be a good fit for ICANN. 
        2. Where there are grey areas in such a third party regional
construct,  members of constituencies (or territories) may opt-in (in
advance) to whichever region they wish (subject to some underlying logic
to avoid mere whim).[Gomes, Chuck]  Flexibility is usually good but it
can also be gamed.  Need to think about this more. 
        Your thoughts on this shaping would be most welcome.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy