Dear Nirmol: Perhaps it is useful to understand that there are currently geographic regions recognised within ICANN, so it is not that there is a consultaton on whether or not to have regional groupings, but what those groupings should consist of. Of course the ALAC could suggest that all regions be removed. If that were to happen, for example, the Asia Pacific region of At-Large would cease to exist, and all ALSes would be lumped together. There are those who might think that is a good idea. Personally, I suspect that this would mean that some social regions would get less attention than others because they would not be guaranteed a voice. For example, if all of ICANN operated on a completely flat regional structure, would Africa get the same amount of attention as North America or Europe does? On 9 Feb 2007 07:35:00 -0000, Lawyer Nirmol <nirmol81@rediffmail.com> wrote:
I dont understand the idea.
Internet is a world wide concept and the formation of managing societies like ALAC was to my understanding merely of convinience in administration. The concerns of the middle east countries has to be addressed by their At large structures and communicated to ALAC which in turn will communicate it to ICANN. As the role is mere advisory how does it matter as to how the administration block is structured. ISVK-India fails to buy the idea of creating jurisdiction over the administration of ICANN.
Regards, Nirmol ISVK India
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 Nick Ashton-Hart wrote :
Just a reminder, there is an open consultation on the Geographic Regions of ICANN, and whether the regions should be changed.
The At-Large community's views would be welcomed - this point was actually reinforced to me today by Paul Twomey amongst others.
Might I suggest at least two points which could be communicated, these two points being ones I have heard mentioned by others, and not being personal observations?
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.
For the full text of the consultation announcement, please visit http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm. -- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-ALS mailing list APAC-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-als_atlarge-lists.icann...
<http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/signat...>
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart