I expressed a similar opinion on a ccNSO questionnaire that was put up some time ago. In the long run the three regions of the Old World could be realigned into five as follows: Europe, Eurasia, Pacific, Africa and Arabia. Pacific is everything to the east of Indian subcontinent, Eurasia would have Indian subcontinent on the east, Central Asia, non-Arab Middle East and possibly some of eastern Europe(by choice), Arabia would be Arab Middle East plus North Africa, with Europe and Africa having the rest. In the short run there are problems, e.g., not all regions are equally capable of holding those large ICANN meetings, and a fair representation formula for various ICANN bodies would be a challenge. One could perhaps not tie those problems to regional classification in a strict manner: ICANN meetings could be held in cycles of 4(instead of the present 5), three in the Old World, one in the Americas. As for representation, reduce the number of strict regional representatives and select some on a non-regional basis while trying to keep some balance. Why then have a regional classification at all? Perhaps we won't need it in the very long run, but for now some kind of fairly homogeneous grouping could help give voice to special concerns specially with regard to At-Large representation. Siavash
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote, On 07/02/2007 14:40:
Just a reminder, there is an open consultation on the Geographic Regions of ICANN, and whether the regions should be changed. 1) Some member-states of the European Union are located in regions outside of Europe, which ought to be changed. In fact, candidate states of the EU might also be better situated within the European region than in others (Turkey comes to mind as an obvious example of this); 2) The Asia-Pacific region is currently enormous. I have heard it said in particular that some representatives of Middle-Eastern groups believe it ought to be a region of it's own, not in the APAC region. My personal opinion is that, indeed, the APAC region is too large and should be split into 3 regions (ie Middle East, Asia and Pacific). The rationale is that the Pacific Islands live in a very different context than Asia, where the economy is booming. The Middle East has its own specific societal values.
More generally, I would leave to each country/territory to select which of two regions it wants to be affiliated with. This would help some some issues that were mentioned earlier:
- If Israel finds it difficult to be a member of the Middle East region, it could ask to become a member of European region. After all, it is already a member of the Council of Europe. - Turkey could choose between Middle East and Europe - EU territories outside the European geographic area could choose if they are closer in spirit with Europe or with the region they are geographically located in
To make this more logical at the global ICANN level, there should be a consensus decision between the GAC, ccTLD and ALS representatives. In case there is a lack of consensus, the GAC representative's opinion would prevail.
I am sure many people will disagree with the above, so let's talk.
Patrick Vande Walle
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------