All, In the forthcoming GNSO Council meeting, we have an item on the Geographic Regions Review WG Final Report. The chair of the WG has made it clear that he would like some formal acknowledgement that we have seen the report, even if we offer no comment. As chair of the Council therefore, I feel we have to provide a formal response, ideally with some substance. It seems to me that we have two options: 1. A single GNSO Council response which: a. acknowledges and thanks the group and b. to the extent that it is possible, synthesises input from GNSO SGs & constituencies OR 2. A single GNSO Council response which: a. acknowledges and thanks the group and b. Indicates that specific GNSO groups will provide additional specific feedback. We have discussed this in the Registries SG and the RySG will formulate some input which will work with 1b or 2b above, depending on what the Council decides is best. I have prepared a short summary of information on the Geographic Regions Review WG which you may find helpful. It is included it below. Any feedback on this item and the way forward will be helpful. Jonathan -- The Geographic Regions Review Working Group, a community-wide working group established by the Board, has nearly completed its work developing recommendations to the ICANN Board for the continued use of theICANN Geographic Regions Framework. The Working Group has produced those recommendations in a Final Report document that is being shared today with the community. According to the Working Group Charter, each community Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee that contributed members to the Working Group will now have the opportunity to formally review and comment on this document before it is submitted to the ICANN Board. The Working Group will host a workshop during the upcoming ICANN Public Meeting in Durban, South Africa and briefings will be made available to the leadership of all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SOs and ACs) as needed. The link below is for the English language version of the Geographic Regions Review WG final report. http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13 -en.pdf Executive Summary 1. In this Final Report, the Geographic Regions Review Working Group (hereinafter the "Working Group") reviews its efforts and makes a number of recommendations to the ICANN Board for modifications to the application of the ICANN Geographic Regions Framework. 2. The Working Group was formed by the Board to (1) identify the different purposes for which ICANN's Geographic Regions are used; (2) determine whether the uses of ICANN's Geographic Regions (as currently defined, or at all) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. 3. The Working Group finds that the ICANN principle of geographic diversity remains important and relevant to ICANN's mission. Over the course of its deliberations, the Working Group has (1) reviewed the underlying history, objectives and general principles of ICANN"s Geographic Regions Framework, (2) identified the various applications and functions to which the regions framework has been applied by existing structures and the ICANN staff; and (3) engaged the community in an extensive collaborative dialogue about issues and potential solutions to maintain and potentially expand the value of the geographic regions framework for the entire community. 4. In 2000, the ICANN Board directed Staff to assign countries and territories to geographic regions on the basis of the United Nations Statistics Division's existing classifications. However, the working Group has found that in mapping the UN Statistics' categorization into ICANN's pre-defined Regions, the Staff apparently deviated significantly from the UN allocations. 5. Despite these deviations from the Board's original objective, the Working Group concludes that over the past decade, ICANN has largely applied geographic diversity principles consistent with the organization's diversity goals. 6. The Working Group attempted to identify an alternative consistent or standard geographic categorization model with international recognition that would better meet ICANN's requirements. Unfortunately, no such model has been found. 7. The Working Group concludes that wholesale modifications to the original geographic regions framework is not merited, and recommends that ICANN adopt its own Geographic Regions Framework based upon the current assignment of countries to regions. This new framework system should govern the make-up of the ICANN Board. However, to provide flexibility to individual communities and structures within ICANN, it is recommended that for the time being they be permitted to: a. follow the same framework as the Board, or b. develop their own mechanisms (with Board oversight) for ensuring geographic diversity within their own organizations. 8. The Working Group recommends that the Board should direct Staff to prepare and maintain ICANN's own unique organizational table that clearly shows the allocation of countries and territories (as defined by ISO 3166) to its existing five Geographic Regions.1 The initial allocation should reflect the status quo of the current assignments. However, Staff should also develop and implement a process to permit stakeholder communities in countries or territories to pursue, if they wish, re-assignment to a geographic region that they consider to be more appropriate for their jurisdiction. 9. Just as the Internet has evolved technically, structurally and geographically over the past decade, ICANN should manage its own evolution to ensure opportunities and make potential allowances for cultural and language diversity. In that context, the Working Group recommends that ICANN seek ways to recognize and accommodate Special Interest Groups to promote the interests and unique attributes of stakeholder communities that may not clearly fit into the formal top down regional structures. These "bottom-up" groupings would be complementary to the formal regional framework, and would not replace it. They would not form any part of ICANN's decision-making structure but would be free to lobby for the support of elected representatives. 10. Finally, the Working Group recommends that the Board maintain oversight over the existing geographic regions framework at all levels within the ICANN organization and review the effectiveness of its application at regular five-year intervals.