Page History

1)  Category A - RIR Model

Issue/Suggestion/Recommendation

Comments/Disposition

1.1  The NRO says, “while the Draft Final Report suggests the use of the RIR model ‘as a starting point for a revised regional framework at ICANN’, it does not mention how changes in the RIR system may affect the ICANN geographic framework in the future. The NRO suggests, “perhaps a Final Version could expand more on this possible scenario.

After reviewing community comments, the WG has decided not to use the RIR model as the template for a new geographic regions framework.

1.2   The ALAC says the current framework should be maintained.  It asserts that aligning the regions to the RIR model “does not enhance diversity and would not ensure more international representation than the current model.”

After reviewing community comments, the WG has decided not to use the RIR model as the template for a new geographic regions framework.

1.3  ALAC says, “the RIRs model was built on technical considerations having nothing to do with diversity. It cannot be the right model for ICANN.  If the actual framework is not perfect, the one proposed is worse.”

After reviewing community comments, the WG has decided not to use the RIR model as the template for a new geographic regions framework.

1.4  The ALAC prefers that a formal process should be created permitting any country “in a purely bottom-up fashion … to request a change from its current region.”

The WG has adopted this approach in its Final Report.

1.5  ALAC acknowledges that a system by which a country may ask for reassignment is yet to be designed and “would require further study.”

Noted.

2)  Category B - Specific Country/Territory Comments - Sovereignty and Right of Self Determination

Issue/Suggestion/Recommendation

Comments/Disposition

2.1 Do not consider the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands as territories or states separate from the Republic of Argentina. (IA)

Nothing in the Final Report changes the fundamental ICANN principal that countries and territories are defined not by ICANN but by ISO 3166.

2.2  How does the WG propose to address the issue of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands?  IA has counseled that ICANN should avoid involving itself in political issues. (IA): and ccNSO says, “ICANN should not become involved in the differing relationships between territories and mother countries.” 

The Working Group does not intend to address the issue of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands at all. The Islands are defined by ISO 3166 (not by the WG or ICANN) as a country or territory.  What ICANN region countries or territories may opt to be in at any particular time has no bearing on international politics.

In the particular case of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, the UK has commented that if ICANN intends to consider implementing the changes recommended in the draft report, the UK Government accordingly would consult the administrations of its overseas territories for their views on re-allocation.  The UK says, “it is expected that the administrations would in turn consult stakeholders in the local Internet community (including the ccTLD registry).

2.3  ALAC asserts that by moving to the RIR model, ICANN opens itself up to taking sides in unresolved international conflicts.

The WG feels that there is no basis for this concern.  See 2.1 above. Regardless, after reviewing community comments, the WG has decided not to use the RIR model as the template for a new geographic regions framework.  However, it does recommend that ICANN maintains its own list of countries and territories and make up each ICANN Region.

2.4  ccNSO - “with respect to the ccNSO, the option to select the new geographic regions set-up should be made by the ccTLD operator, the territorial government, the mother-country government, and/or some combination of those stakeholders.” 

The WG agrees but has added the local Internet community as a relevant stakeholder and has ensured that the Final Report clearly reflects this view.

2.5  The C-ALSs say that the Caribbean “should be given the option to collectively stay in the LAC Region or be reallocated to another region.”  They also assert, “any Caribbean country or territory should be able to apply to change the region to which their country and territory would be classified under the RIR system.”

This comment remains valid despite the fact that the RIR system is no longer being advocated.  Nevertheless, this is a matter for the individual countries in the Caribbean.  ICANN cannot “require” any block of countries to be in the same Region if that is not the wish of the individual jurisdictions.

2.6  UK says “every country and territory should be allowed the opportunity to determine its regional allocation at any time.”

While the WG agrees in principle, it believes that the proposal that any country or territory should be allowed to change its Region at any time should be treated with great care.  Regions determine the make-up of the Board and, in some SOs/ACs, they are electoral constituencies.  These uses require a degree of stability.  Measures may be required to prevent potential “gamesmanship” being used to promote a particular individual or policy by countries moving from one region to another.

2.7  ccNSO - “with respect to the ccNSO, the option to select the new geographic regions set-up should be made by the ccTLD operator, the territorial government, the mother-country government, and/or some combination of those stakeholders.” 

Agreed, but the Internet community should also be included.  See also 2.4 above.

3)  Category C - Diversity

Issue/Suggestion/Recommendation

Comments/Disposition

3.1  No actionable comments

4)  Category D – Reaction and Suggestions Regarding the concept of “Special Interest Groups”

Issue/Suggestion/Recommendation

Comments/Disposition

4.1  The ccNSO says that while it is generally supportive of the Special Interest Groups concept, “the … creation of such groups will raise complexities (for example, their roles and responsibilities, and eligibility to participate as Regional Organizations) that require further study and review.”

Noted.

4.2  ccNSO  says, “while the issue may be out of scope of the Geographic Regions Working Group, it should be noted that certain sections of ICANN’s By-laws, pertaining to the requirements of Regional Organizations, may need to be reviewed.”

Agreed.  The WG acknowledges that certain Bylaws reviews may be necessary to fully implement its recommendationsThis was recognized by the WG and such a review was recommended at para 69 of the Final Report.

4.3  C-ALSs - “any defined Special Interest Group must be given appropriate legitimacy by offering tangible ICANN representation.”

The WG does not agree.  SIGs work effectively in other international fora without having any direct representation. (e.g. ITU)

4.4  PICISOC continues to propose “that some recognition be given to the unique situation of the Pacific nations both geographically and institutionally.”  PICSOC says, “A special interest group was proposed earlier. But, perhaps another review is required.”

The Pacific nations would certainly have the flexibility to create their own SIG under the WG recommendations.

5)  Category E – Transition to the new framework – SO–AC Impacts/Opting-In

Issue/Suggestion/Recommendation

Comments/Disposition

5.1  The ccNSO believes “that the WG’s recommended “one-off” opportunity to opt-out would be unworkable, and prefer to implement any such changes on an ongoing option to opt in to, and subsequently opt out of, the new structure.

The WG has adjusted its recommendations to reflect the opt-in option for all countries and territories. See Section 5.2 below.

5.2  The ccNSO “recommends that the transition proceed on a purely voluntary, bottom-up basis. Such an approach should permit participants (for example members of the ccNSO) to opt-in to the new regional framework on a continuous basis (as opposed to the “once-only” “opt-out” approach identified by the WG in the Draft Final Report).”

There are advantages and disadvantages to both opt-in and opt-out methodologies.  The problem with opt-in is that most countries may not make the effort to change and so the existing illogical regional structure will be perpetuated.  Nevertheless, there has been overwhelming community feedback that many individuals and organizations wish as far as possible to maintain the status quo. The WG has accepted the majority view and has amended its recommendations accordingly.

5.3  C-ALSs, ccNSO, UK also support opt-in approach rather than opt-out as currently recommended.

See 5.2 above

5.4  C-ALSs say, any regional reassignment should (1) “be permitted at the beginning g of the application of the new framework”, (2) “include support of the local Internet community (not just Governments)”, and (3) allow revisions to occur in an appropriate time (not 10 years) after the framework is reviewed.”

Agreed that local internet community should also be involved.  The question of timescales has been reviewed and the WG has recommended reviews at regular 5-year intervals.

6)  Category F – Specific Edit Suggestions

Issue/Suggestion/Recommendation

Comments/Disposition

6.1  FE - Edit in para 48(b)  change “party on language” to “partly on language”

Agreed

6.2  FE – Edit in para 47(e)  delete word “and” in third from last line

Agreed

6.3  IA- Eliminate the last sentence of para 47(e)

This edit has been rendered moot by the revised WG recommendations.

6.4  IA Page 24 Appendix B – Do not recognize the Falkland Islands as separate from Argentina

Appendix B has been deleted. 

6.5  (ALAC and LACRALO) – The term “Mother Countries” is taken as offensive by some countries and should not be used in the document.  If it is used, it should be used with quotation signs.

Quotation marks will be used in the Final Report.

6.6  UK points out in a late January email that “Montserrat (the “.ms” ccTLD) which is a UK Overseas Territory in the Caribbean is not included in the list in Appendix B. I would assume it is potentially a candidate for moving from Europe to North America along with the other UK OTs in the Caribbean (Anguilla, Bermuda, BVI, Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos).”

Appendix B has been deleted. 

6.7  UK points out in a late January email that “Also not mentioned is Ascension (the “.ac” ccTLD) and I wonder if the geography has gone awry with regard to St. Helena which (like Ascension) is located in the south Atlantic so logically it would be transferred from Europe to LAC (like the Falklands and South Georgia) rather than as on the list to North America.”

Appendix B has been deleted. 

7)  Category G – Creating A New Allocation Chart

7.1  In the Pre-Prague time frame, Policy Staff supporting the ccNSO identified a new issue being raised by community members – the present ICANN allocation list of countries to regions established in Montreal in 2003 does not include a number of new countries and territories.  This raised the question, to what regions should new Countries and territories be assigned within the ICANN framework?

This development was beyond the scope of the WG charter.

The WG understands that ICANN staff worked to assign new ccNSO members to the most apparent appropriate regions and has been working to update the Montreal list with the expectation of seeking Board approval of an new updated list in the near future – perhaps in conjunction with action on the WG recommendations.