RE: [gnso-geo-dg] Principles and comments
- To: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-geo-dg] Principles and comments
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:22:01 -0400
Thanks Olga. I should have assumed that or at least looked at Denise's
message. I now understand the latter half of the second part but I think I
will ask Denise the question about 'At-Large'.
From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 8:52 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [gnso-geo-dg] Principles and comments
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 <mailto: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
Regions would 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 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
<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx> ), who is staffing this issue, if you have any
questions. We look forward to following-up with the GNSO.
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.
[mailto:owner-gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 3:11 PM
Cc: Olga Cavalli
Subject: [gnso-geo-dg] Principles and comments
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