AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Working Group Report - NCSG Response

[Sam Lanfranco]

Ayden,

The questions were only for NCSG reflection. As for what the WG has 
done, for the most part that train has left the station when it comes to 
the substance of my questions.
For now, I am making no recommendations and no further requests. If I am 
right, the problem with focusing on what a domain is not, does not 
partition it into an adequate definition of what it is, and this  issue 
will come back to haunt implementation on its own. If I am right, we are 
at least forewarned. If I am wrong, there is no problem here.

Sam

On 2016-04-05 2:49 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> Thanks for your message. May I clarify please - are these questions 
> you are posing to the NCSG, or to the Geographic Regions Review 
> Working Group? If it's the latter, I'll find a way to incorporate them 
> into our consultation response — though I think the Working Group 
> would argue that they have already addressed them. They are currently 
> in the third stage of their work; in the first phase back in 2009 they 
> were asking about definitions and current and future uses of the 
> regions. Should we be asking that they re-visit this topic?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ayden
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 4:55 PM, Sam Lanfranco lanfran at yorku.ca 
> <mailto:lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>     Ayden,
>
>     Short comment: To be clear, the question of why we need regions
>     was not mean to open up a Yes/No discussion, it was to address the
>     HOW we get there.
>         WHAT is the issue:         Goal of greater geographic
>     diversity and inclusiveness in ICANN processes
>         WHY is this an issue:      ICANN is committed to a
>     multistakeholder model of engagement in policy formation and
>     implementation within its remit
>         HOW do we get there:  (a) how should regions be defined; (b)
>     what are the entitlements of regions; (c) what are the obligations
>     of regions
>
>     At the core of defining regions there are three considerations:
>         (1) For each member in each region does that membership give
>     that member an adequate and equitable voice? (Are they in the
>     right region?)
>         (2) What entitlements flow from membership in an ICANN region
>     grouping? (How are they equitably distributed among members?)
>         (3) What obligations flow from membership in an ICANN regional
>     grouping? (How are they equitably honored across members?)
>
>     If I were retained as a strategic planning consultant here I would
>     work the group through questions 1,2, & 3, and take the need for
>     regions as given.
>
>     Sam L.
>
>     /On 2016-04-05 9:31 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote://
>     /
>>     ////////////// ////
>>     ////
>>     /Hi Sam et al,//
>>     //
>>     //Thanks for your interesting comments. I like that you've
>>     started from the basic question of why do we even have or need
>>     regions. I've been thinking about that this morning - I think
>>     geographical boundaries and ensuring diversity here //matters//,
>>     but I struggle to understand //how much//it matters. As best I
>>     can tell, ICANN established regions to ensure 'diversity' on the
>>     Board of Directors, and from that the regions have come to be
>>     seen as a mechanism for ensuring population diversity in ICANN
>>     activities. As Milton noted there are other areas where we can
>>     forge commonalities (languages, economic grounds, cultural
>>     factors) -- and probably more effectively -- so should we ask for
>>     a new regions framework (rather than a geographic regions
>>     framework)?/
>>     /
>>     /
>>     /There is now a //second draft
>>     <https://links8.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/JEQC8TeAsC0qGXU5i?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI>//of
>>     our statement on Google Docs. For those who have read the first
>>     draft, the only additions are paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 7. I think
>>     paragraphs 5 and 7 could be a little contentious. I'm not
>>     precious about language; if anyone would like to revise or reword
>>     it, please do. This is just a draft. Once I have some feedback
>>     from the community on these points, I'll look to strengthen the
>>     conclusion of the statement in a third draft by adding some
>>     'asks'. Please feel free to edit the document and to add new
>>     bullet points or arguments I may have missed./
>>     /
>>     /
>>     /The deadline for consultation responses on this report is 24
>>     April. I'd like to get a 3rd draft ready by next Tuesday (12
>>     April) with a view to submitting this to the Comments Forum on 19
>>     April./
>>     /
>>     /
>>     /https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-c2vVT2DNO73l89wfZTvKtY70rmaid8g7XBO-Vto9SM/edit?usp=sharing
>>     /
>>     /
>>     /
>>     /I welcome and look forward to hearing your thoughts./
>>     /
>>     /
>>     /Best wishes,/
>>     /
>>     /
>>     /Ayden/
>>
>>
>>
>         [rest deleted]
>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> Statement of Interest 
> <https://links8.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/ZijdKTXxZJTv1u08D?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20160405/67762142/attachment.htm>