ICANN Geographic Regions Final Report by the Geographic Regions Review WG
Since the "ICANN Geographic Regions Report" came up as a idea for possible focus for study and comment by the LACRALO ccTLD WG on the LACRALO ccTLD WG conference call on Wednesday, here is some background information regarding the ICANN geographic regions report. The Geographic Regions Report is the Final Report produced by the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. Final Report can be viewed here : http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13... http://www.icann.org/es/news/public-comment/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13... The Final Report had several conclusions and recommendations : a) The general principle of geographic diversity is valuable and should be preserved. b) Application of the geographic diversity principles must be more rigorous, clear and consistent. c) Adjusting the number of ICANN geographic regions is not currently practical. d) No other International Regional Structures offer useful options for ICANN. e) ICANN must formally adopt and maintain its own unique Geographic Regions Framework. f) The Community wants to minimize any changes to the current structure. g) ICANN must acknowledge the sovereignty and right of self-determination of states to let them choose their region of allocation. h) ICANN communities have flexibly applied geographic diversity principles over the years. While the Board should remain strictly subject to the current framework, flexibility should be preserved for other structures. i) “Special Interest Groups” or “Cross-Regional Sub-Groups” offer new diversity opportunities. j) Implementation mechanisms and processes must be developed by Staff. k) The Board must preserve its oversight and future review opportunities. The ALAC was requested to submit comments on the Final Report before the Final Report was presented to the ICANN Board. Such comments were drafted, reviewed by At-Large and voted by the ALAC to send to the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. See https://community.icann.org/x/8jOfAg As such, there is little relation of this Final Report to ccTLD issues that I think the LACRALO ccTLD WG would want to work on. Kind Regards, Dev Anand
Dev, thanks for sharing. Now of course your message begs the question, what is LACRALO Working Group on ccTLDs trying to achieve? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Dev Anand Teelucksingh [devtee@gmail.com] Enviado el: jueves, 23 de enero de 2014 10:48 Hasta: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: [lac-discuss-en] ICANN Geographic Regions Final Report by the Geographic Regions Review WG Since the "ICANN Geographic Regions Report" came up as a idea for possible focus for study and comment by the LACRALO ccTLD WG on the LACRALO ccTLD WG conference call on Wednesday, here is some background information regarding the ICANN geographic regions report. The Geographic Regions Report is the Final Report produced by the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. Final Report can be viewed here : http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13... http://www.icann.org/es/news/public-comment/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13... The Final Report had several conclusions and recommendations : a) The general principle of geographic diversity is valuable and should be preserved. b) Application of the geographic diversity principles must be more rigorous, clear and consistent. c) Adjusting the number of ICANN geographic regions is not currently practical. d) No other International Regional Structures offer useful options for ICANN. e) ICANN must formally adopt and maintain its own unique Geographic Regions Framework. f) The Community wants to minimize any changes to the current structure. g) ICANN must acknowledge the sovereignty and right of self-determination of states to let them choose their region of allocation. h) ICANN communities have flexibly applied geographic diversity principles over the years. While the Board should remain strictly subject to the current framework, flexibility should be preserved for other structures. i) “Special Interest Groups” or “Cross-Regional Sub-Groups” offer new diversity opportunities. j) Implementation mechanisms and processes must be developed by Staff. k) The Board must preserve its oversight and future review opportunities. The ALAC was requested to submit comments on the Final Report before the Final Report was presented to the ICANN Board. Such comments were drafted, reviewed by At-Large and voted by the ALAC to send to the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. See https://community.icann.org/x/8jOfAg As such, there is little relation of this Final Report to ccTLD issues that I think the LACRALO ccTLD WG would want to work on. Kind Regards, Dev Anand _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
participants (2)
-
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch