At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace

Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.

Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.

Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below. 

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

Dear Dave,        

Thank you for your original note of 3 July 2013 regarding the Final Report of the Geographic Regions Review  Working Group  that you chair.  

The At-Large Advisory Committee has considered the Working Group recommendations and would like to make the following remarks:

Recommendation B

The ALAC supports the recommendation for ICANN to adopt a more rigorous approach by re-defining a clear and consistent classification framework that assigns countries and territories to regions. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the way and the criteria for such re-definition were suggested.

Recommendation E

Using the RIR framework wouldn’t be a good approach because it is being contested even inside the RIR community. If we feel that the current ICANN framework is not good, we should not replace it with a contested one.  

Recommendation G

The ALAC strongly supports that ICANN must acknowledge the Sovereignty and right of self-determination of States to let them choose their region of allocation and request, if they so desire, a move to another geographic region.

We also believe that any application for reassignment should have the support of the government of the country or territory and the local internet community. 

We think that requesting a reassignment each 3 years is too much. The maximum frequency shouldn’t exceed one request per 5 years. 

Recommendation H

While the paragraph 67 mentions that it is not suggested each SO and AC be permitted to create its own regional framework, the recommendation says that the manner each SO-AC (but not the board) meets the geographic diversity requirements of that system should be up to them, and that they may, or may not, make use of the regional framework. The ALAC find that very ambiguous and could lead to a misunderstanding.  

Recommendation I

When we speak about geography, we are speaking about regions, and the ALAC doesn’t believe that the geographic regions could be in any case built on other consideration than the regional one. The cultural and linguistic diversity are important but can’t impact the geographic regions framework. If we want it to be regions plus culture plus language, we have to call it diversity, not geographic regions. 

The “special interest groups” is a legitimate interest that can be recognized by ICANN but not in the context of geographic regions. 

Recommendation K

Finally, the ALAC supports the recommendation to amend the bylaws to modify the present requirement for review of the Geographic Regions from three years period to five. 

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

Dear Dave,        

Thank you for your original note of 3 July 2013 regarding the Final Report of the Geographic Regions Review  Working Group  that you chair.  

The At-Large Advisory Committee has considered the Working Group recommendations and would like to make the following remarks:

Recommendation B

The ALAC supports the recommendation for ICANN to adopt a more rigorous approach by re-defining a clear and consistent classification framework that assigns countries and territories to regions. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the way and the criteria for such re-definition were suggested.

Recommendation E

Using the RIR framework wouldn’t be a good approach because it is being contested even inside the RIR community. If we feel that the current ICANN framework is not good, we should not replace it with a contested one.  

Recommendation G

The ALAC strongly supports that ICANN must acknowledge the Sovereignty and right of self-determination of States to let them choose their region of allocation and request, if they so desire, a move to another geographic region.

We also believe that any application for reassignment should have the support of the government of the country or territory and the local internet community. 

We think that requesting a reassignment each 3 years is too much. The maximum frequency shouldn’t exceed one request per 5 years. 

Recommendation H

While the paragraph 67 mentions that it is not suggested each SO and AC be permitted to create its own regional framework, the recommendation says that the manner each SO-AC (but not the board) meets the geographic diversity requirements of that system should be up to them, and that they may, or may not, make use of the regional framework. The ALAC find that very ambiguous and could lead to a misunderstanding.  

Recommendation I

When we speak about geography, we are speaking about regions, and the ALAC doesn’t believe that the geographic regions could be in any case built on other consideration than the regional one. The cultural and linguistic diversity are important but can’t impact the geographic regions framework. If we want it to be regions plus culture plus language, we have to call it diversity, not geographic regions. 

The “special interest groups” is a legitimate interest that can be recognized by ICANN but not in the context of geographic regions. 

Recommendation K

Finally, the ALAC supports the recommendation to amend the bylaws to modify the present requirement for review of the Geographic Regions from three years period to five.