[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re:??????? = Utf-8 Recomendaciones_informe_final_del_Grup q = q = utf-8 o_de_Revisi = C3 = C3 = A1ficas B3n_de_Trabajo_sobre_Regiones_Geogr = =? From: vanda@scartezini.org Dear Alexander. I am in full agreement with you. The historio demonstrated and continues to demonstrate think that the interests of the various stakeholders can not be alone under the decision of governments. Relembras very For Mexico itself, but I think in Asia we will find many more. So your point is very relevant and deve be questioned. Hugs Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> "On Behalf Of" cveraq@gmail.com <mailto:cveraq@gmail.com> " Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 7:42 a.m. To: Alejandro Pisanty Cc: "lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> " Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Recommended final report of the Review Working Group Geographic Regions Alex: I understand that you mean North American and Latin American. Although prove difficult to remove the element of decision to the State represented by its legitimate government, I consider that a multisectoral internal consultation process could be a prelude to the statement in this regard. Cheers Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Follow mecveraq 4 Jan 2016, at 11:21 pm, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com<mailto:apisanty@gmail.com> > He wrote: Colleagues, I refer to the document sent to the new job of ICANN regions. Particularly problematic meeting point no. 7 which indicates that governments will determine the region that their countries belong. This is contrary to the principle "mulstistakeholder" and the history of ICANN. Many national communities are in the regions to which they belong by a decision of the various "stakeholders", taken in many cases when the government of his country did not pay any attention to ICANN processes. Cases like that of Mexico, for which the chances of being considered part of the Latin American or Latin American community arose were resolved well. Today we have the opportunity to review the membership LACRALO other national or regional communities are exploring their cultural identity, language and legal tradition in North America. Perhaps they are in conformity with the decision to leave in the hands of their governments. This is not guaranteed and should know soon. I propose that LACRALO will turn against this point as currently drafted and instead establish first multistakeholder that at least requires an open and transparent to all sectors public consultation, following the way we proceed in cases of redelegation ccTLD. What others think? Alejandro Pisanty 12/24/2015 8:42 GMT-06: 00 <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> >: [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: Fwd: Recommendations Final Report Review Working Group Geographic Regions From: carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> [Image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-12-23-en ------------------------------ Recommendations Final Report Review Group Geographic Regions Working December 23, 2015 * Forum Announcement: * public comment period opens * Date: * December 23 2015 * Categories / Tags: Comments / Improvements * Purpose (Brief): * The Geographic Regions Review Working Group occurred between communities its final report, which proposes a series of recommendations regarding the ongoing implementation of the framework of the geographical regions of the organization. The ICANN Board is interested in further reaction of the community to which recommendations and instructed the staff to open and manage a public comment period of at least 120 days to give the community the opportunity to thoroughly review the proposals and provide any additional comments on the the recommendations of the working group. Final Report of the Working Group offers an extensive range of conclusions, proposals and recommendations, including: 1. The Working Group concludes that the general principle of geographical diversity is valuable and should be preserved. 2. Application of the principles of geographical diversity should be more rigorous, clear and consistent. 3. Set the number of geographic regions ICANN is not currently practical. 4. No other international regional structures offer useful options ICANN. 5. ICANN should formally adopt and maintain its own unique Geographic Framework regions. 6. The Community wants to minimize any change in the current structure. 7.ICANN should recognize the sovereignty and right to self-determination of states to let them choose their region of assignment. 8.ICANN communities have applied flexibly geographical diversity principles in recent years. While the Board should remain strictly subject that the current framework, flexibility should be preserved for others structures. 9. "Special Interest Groups" or "Cross-Regional Sub-Groups" offer new diversity opportunities. 10. mechanisms and implementation processes should be developed by staff; Y 11. The Board shall preserve their future monitoring and review opportunities. The extensive comment period will give individuals and groups in the community with a opportunity to thoroughly examine the proposals and provide any additional comments on the recommendations of the working group. * Public Comment Box link: * https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4ac238c784.html --]]