Regions Working Group Telephone Conference (02 may 2007)
David Archbold, .ky (Chair)
Bart Boswinkel, ICANN
Becky Burr, ccNSO Council
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
Bart Boswinkel and David Archbold ran through the revised Regions report and highlighted which changes had been done to the original draft report. The revised report is mainly basing on comments received during the Lisbon meeting.
Purpose and Definition of ICANN Geographic Regions
The report starts with both an explanation of the purpose of the ICANN geographic regions and a definition of the ICANN geographical regions.
Whilst the ICANN board agreed to adopt the UN regional structures at their meeting in Yokohama, it also decided to have persons from areas that are not countries grouped together basing on their citizenship. This was done in order to appoint At Large directors from territories that are not countries. This mechanism was reconfirmed at the Montreal meeting, however, without considering the new ccNSO structure.
It was underlined that although the system may be sufficient for the appointment of individuals to the board, it is questionable whether it can be used for countries.
The next section of the report is delineating the problems and concerns the ccNSO community has with the current definition of the geographic regions, and examples are given to show what impact it has on those affected.
One example shows how the fact that there actually are several different regional structures within ICANN (ccNSO regions, regions used by the ASO/NRO, Regional Liaisons regions) creates perplexing situations for some nations. For instance, if an Arabic country likes to appoint an ICANN board member through the ASO, they need to go through the RIPE NCC region. If they like to appoint a board member through the ccNSO, this has to be done through the APTLD region.
A reorganisation of options was done in the new draft report because it was felt that the previous draft caused confusion as it was not clear to whom the options actually were presented.
In the new draft, options directed to the board were separated from the options directed to the ccNSO:
Options for the ICANN Board
It was recognised that the ICANN Bylaws require the ICANN board to do a review of the Geographical Regions every three years. As the last review was undertaken in 2003, the board now must take some action on this issue and following two options were presented:
1) The board is to pass a board resolution that properly authorises the present state of the Geographical Regions
It was recognised that such a resolution would be difficult to draft, as it would have to acknowledge that ICANN is creating a definition of Geograpic Regions independently of other international standards.
2) The board comes up with a board resolution that authorises new or revised Geographical Regions.
As the issue is very complex, it is likely that the ICANN Board would appoint a Working Group to study the issue and make recommendations before any decision is taken on the matter.
Options for the ccNSO
The options for the ccNSO were simplified compared to the previous version and each option has been expanded with clarifications in the report:
1) To do nothing
2) Try to design a new regional structure for the ccNSO only
3) To make minor short-term modifications (removing some obvious anomalies)
4) To make To make a submission to the ICANN board, drawing attention to the ccNSO concerns.
The report strongly recommends following option four, as well as approving to do some short term modifications.
Draft Outline Procedure
A draft outline procedure has also been put together, delineating the different steps in the process and adding timings to it.
The next step in the planning foresees sending out the revised draft report for consultation of the ccNSO membership and ccTLD managers, which is planned for the 9th of May. For this, a two-week comment period is foreseen.
The paper will then be adjusted and posted for public consultation in the first week of June.
During the Puerto Rico meeting it will be up for discussion with the GAC and other stakeholders again and will be adjusted according to the input received.
After that, the consultation period on the report is concluded and recommendations will be made to the ccNSO Council so that they can take a decision on it. The procedure also foresees that the membership may still approve or disapprove the decisions made by the ccNSO Council.
If the ccNSO Council submits a ccNSO advice to the ICANN board, this would happen around the 23rd July.
It was finally pointed out that if the ccTLD managers and ccNSO members approve the draft Report, then recommendations for a self-selection procedure need to be drafted.