ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-geo-dg] Principles and comments
  • From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:10:27 -0400

Ken Stubbs wrote:

I personally agree with tim's comments below


Tim Ruiz wrote:
At least personally, I agree with Chuck but would expand on it a bit. My
thinking is that any geographic requirements (if any) on constituencies
in selecting Councilors, or (if any) on the GNSO in selecting Board
members should be measured by citizenship only. The principle that Chuck
proposes below would apply only to the Nominating Committee selections.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-geo-dg] Principles and comments
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, August 14, 2008 5:10 pm
To: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>

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.
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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.3/1611 - Release Date: 8/14/2008 6:20 AM

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy