ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-geo-dg] Principles and comments

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-geo-dg] Principles and comments
  • From: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:52:07 -0300

in relation with the two sentences included at the beginning of the document
as Mission (of our group) I copied - pasted it for our reference from Denise
Michel original message sent on July 15th. I thought that perhaps we could
discuss it during the call, or eventually ask Denise for clarification.
I included Denise´s email below, for our reference.
I will add the new principle and comments to the new version of the document
and will send it to the list.


*From: "Denise Michel" <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>*
*Date: 15 July 2008 13:51:57 EDT*
*To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*
*Cc: policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx*
*Subject: ccNSO Proposal to review Definition of ICANN Geographic Regions*
*Dear Avri and Chuck:

The ICANN Board invited the ICANN community (including the ALAC, ASO, ccNSO,
GAC and GNSO) to provide input on the proposal by the ccNSO to appoint a
community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN's present
Geographic Regions and related issues.

The Board recognized that any potential change to ICANN Geographic
Regionswould have "wide-spread effect" in
ICANN and that it should seek the views of the other Supporting
Organizations and Advisory Committees before taking further action. The
ICANN Board directed Staff to summarize and analyze that community input and
to subsequently prepare a report for consideration to the Board.

The GNSO is kindly requested to provide input, if any, on the suggested
formation of a community wide working group, and its mandate.

Staff is targeting a Board report, summarizing all responses received, by
early September. We hope that the GNSO will be able to provide input on the
relative importance of the Geographic Regions structure to the At-Large
community in general and to the value of a community-wide working group
specifically, by that time. We expect that the proposed working group, if
ultimately formed, will reach out to the broader community to seek further
input and perspectives.*
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.  For your convenience
links to relevant background documents are included below. Please contact
Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director (policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx), who is
staffing this issue, if you have any questions. We look forward to
following-up with the GNSO.


Denise Michel
Vice President Policy*

2008/8/14 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  Thanks Olga.  Very nicely organized.
> I have one question and also want to add a principle.
> In the second item under Mission, you refer to "the At-Large community ".
> I am curious why you say the 'At-Large community' with At-Large in caps.
> That causes me to conclude that you mean the At-Large organization as
> defined in ICANN structure.  I am guessing that you really mean the at-large
> community (no caps), meaning the overall ICANN community, of which the
> At-Large is one subset.  Am I correct?  If so, I would suggest deleting
> 'At-Large' so that it says, "To provide input on the relative importance
> of the Geographic Regions structure to the community in general and . . ."
> Also, I am not clear on what you mean by the second part of that item: ". . 
> and
> to the value of a community-wide working group specifically".
> Here's the principle I would like to add: "The value of any individual
> selected from a geographic region is proportional to the degree to which
> that person represents interests of that region."  What I am trying to say
> here is something like this: 1) selecting someone to participate from a
> specific geographical region only contributes to the goal of geographic
> diversity if that person in some measurable way is able to represent the
> views of that region; 2) this does not mean that that person must be
> selected by some body to represent them but rather that there is some basis
> for expecting that the person understands the concerns of the region and
> thus is qualified to represent those concerns; 3) the importance of
> representativeness for people who are selected for geographic diversity
> reasons to serve in some capacity is very similar to the importance of
> representativeness of GNSO constituencies and the concept is important in
> both cases.  Unfortunately, what I think we sometimes end up doing is
> selecting a person to meet a regional requirement without any consideration
> whether or not that really accomplishes the underlying goals of the
> requirement, i.e., to involve someone who can articulate the needs and views
> of people from that region.  This makes me wonder whether geographic
> diversity requirements should be more than simply citizenship of the person
> involved.
> Chuck
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 14, 2008 3:11 PM
> *To:* gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Olga Cavalli
> *Subject:* [gnso-geo-dg] Principles and comments
>  Dear collegues,
> I have drafted a document that includes the principles and comments
> recieved until today.
> After each paragraph I included the innitials of each of us, so we can
> discuss on each topic during the call on Monday.
> Please feel free to suggest adds or changes and also let me know if there
> is missed information or any missunderstanding of the ideas.
> Best regards
> Olga

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy