Trying to see the proposed situation as a projection for a not-very-far-future, sounds like putting together some of these areas on struggle is to look for more trouble, now on cyberspace. Perhaps they will force for a dot oil TLD... :)) Respectfully, Omar ----- Original Message ----- From: Nick Ashton-Hart To: Danny Younger Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [LAC-ALS] [ALAC] [NA-ALS] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeupof ICANN Regions underway If the community wishes to reiterate support for this recommendation on the regions now would be an appropriate time to do so. With respect to the other points below not related to the consultation on regions, the upcoming External Review of At-Large would, it is submitted, be an opportunity to make these views known, and any others with respect to the structure of At-Large within ICANN, for those who might wish to do so. On 07/02/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote: Nick, you may want to remind Paul that the At-Large Study Committee recommended the creation of a sixth ICANN region comprising India (.in), Pakistan (.pk), Afghanistan (.af), Kazakhstan (.kz), Uzbekistan (.uz), Kyrgyzstan (.kg), Turkmenistan (.tm), Tajikistan (.tj), Sri Lanka (.lk), Maldives (.mv), Iraq (.iq), Iran (.ir), Israel (.il), Syria (.sy), Jordan (.jo), Lebanon (.lb), Palestine Territories (.ps), Kuwait (.kw), UAE (.ae), Yemen (.ye), Oman (.om), Bahrain (.bh), Qatar (.qa), Saudi Arabia (.sa). Of course, the board ignored this recommendation along with the recommendation to establish an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALS0) and the recommendation to seat 6 At-Large Directors within the 19 member Board. So why don't we play at reorganizing the regions instead of focusing on efforts to restore the representation that has been denied to us... perhaps that will keep us sufficiently diverted...