Questions from the ALAC to the Board:
Geographic Regions and Names:
- ICANN’s Geographic Regions were created in 2000 with a Bylaw requirement to review them no less than every three years. In November 2007 (ten years ago), at the request of the ccNSO, the Board initiated a community discussion on the definition and use of regions. A WG was commissioned a year later and in the ensuing seven years, a succession of initial, interim and draft reports were issued culminating in the Final Report issue in October 2015. After a 2 month delay, a Public Comment was initiated which was open for four months and attracted a total of six comments with the report on comments being issued in May 2016. It is now October 2017 and the NEXT Geographic Region Review is scheduled to kick-off a year from now. Can the Board please help us understand the delay and when we will see the report acted on?
- The GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is in the process of initiating a Work Track on the use of Geographic Named at the top level. We are expecting widely divergent views to be expressed and even within the ALAC and At-Large we are expecting significant diversity. Although it is conceivable that this process will result in a solution pleasing everyone, it is somewhat unlikely. The fallback of using the last round’s rules is also known to be problematic. How does the Board envisage reconciling the varying views of its SOs and ACs.
- ICANN’s Geographic Regions were created in 2000 with a Bylaw requirement to review them no less than every three years. In November 2007 (ten years ago), at the request of the ccNSO, the Board initiated a community discussion on the definition and use of regions. A WG was commissioned a year later and in the ensuing seven years, a succession of initial, interim and draft reports were issued culminating in the Final Report issue in October 2015. After a 2 month delay, a Public Comment was initiated which was open for four months and attracted a total of six comments with the report on comments being issued in May 2016. It is now October 2017 and the NEXT Geographic Region Review is scheduled to kick-off a year from now. Can the Board please help us understand the delay and when we will see the report acted on?
2. Post-Transition ICANN
It is a year since the new Bylaws were put in place, and we are starting to see the CCWG-Accountability WorkStream 2 discussions drawing to an end.
Can the Board and/or its members provide feedback on how it sees the new ICANN unfolding, and what are both the high-points of this process and its results, and the low-points and concerns?
3. Topic in Reserve: At-Large Review
Based on the status of the Review and its progress through the Organizational Effectiveness Committee and the Board, the ALAC reserves the right to raise the issue during our meeting with the Board.
7 Comments
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
On behalf of EURALO:
May I suggest following up on the topic of Geographic Regions Review, focussing on the final report of the working group ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en ) and the next steps.
Whilst I understand that the ICANN Board has been very busy with other topics such as the IANA Stewardship Transition and the CCWG Accountability WS1 & WS2, the issue of Geographic Regions appears to have remained idle.
As time passes, and as EURALO Chair involved in the EuroDIG and IGF processes, I have been on the receiving end of increased questioning from stakeholders in countries that are directly affected and might wish to action the options recommended in the Geo Regions Review report, namely in Armenia and Georgia.
Would you please be so kind to let me know informally whether we are likely to see movement on this soon? As EuroDIG, the European IGF, is going to take place in Georgia next year, this matter is becoming critical, in a region of the world that requires our full attention.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
Alan Greenberg
Assuming the Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) recommends that the Board approve our plan, it is not clear when the Board will act. It may do so at a Board meeting prior to the start of the Abu Dhabi meeting, or it may do so during the Open Board meeting on Thursday.
So when we meet on Tuesday, it may be a done-deal, or still up in the air. No way to know for sure until it happens.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Alan Greenberg
Cheryl, the ALAC/At-Large diverse views notwithstanding, there are certainly diverse views between the GNSO and some others, perhaps including parts of At-Large and the GAC.
Isn't the hope that this WT5 will come to come compromise position so that the Board is not faced with such a dilemma?
Vanda Scartezini
Agree with above suggestions from Olivier + Cheryl ( here the geo issue still complex) + Javier - I would add expectation regarding new gTLDs next round + their ideas about Auction $$ to be used for ALAC issues under ICANN mission + what to expect from new board organization for the next year.
Sebastien Bachollet
After more than one year of ICANN under the post-transition bylaws what is the main feedback that the Board can give?