[lac-discuss-en] ICANN Geographic Regions Final Report by the Geographic Regions Review WG

[Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch]

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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Dev Anand Teelucksingh [devtee at 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-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/es/news/public-comment/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13-es.pdf

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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en