Re: [ALAC] [APAC-ALS] [EURO-ALS] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeup of ICANNRegions underway
I'm wondering if the comments Carlton Samuels made recently are relevant here with respect to all Small Island States. Would there be value in discussing whether or not all small island states might be either: 1) Their own region - irrespective of their physical location; 2) In a region of their own, but also associated with the region they are geographically in. On 08/02/07, Franck Martin <franck.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem with the Asia/Pacific grouping is that the Pacific Islands receive so little funds that most of the things that can be done is an assessment study, and no more funds for implementation...
Also the issues are quite different from the Asia and Pacific Islands.
Finally, NC and PF fell more linked to FR than to the other Pacific Islands. This is also true for PW, GM, AS which are more linked to US.
Complex scenario....
On 2/8/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
I think that also Frank, from the Pacific Islands, might have something to add to this (re: the fact that some islands are AP, some EU).
RG
-----Original Message----- From: euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 07 February 2007 14:57 To: nashton@spamcop.net; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-ALS] [ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeup of ICANNRegions underway
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.
I encouraged our Puerto Rican ALS applicants to comment directly, but we should further recall that at least some of them feel they'd be better served by participating in the LAC region.
--Wendy bracing for the set of bounces from regional lists...
For the full text of the consultation announcement, please visit http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ica
nn.org
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-ALS mailing list EURO-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-als_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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...
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin@gmail.com "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard
-- -- 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
If I were asked to choose between 1) and 2), it would be 2). It would be important, IMO, to be positioned geographically. Whilst being a small island state anywhere in the world generally has some common issues and challenges with another small island state elsewhere in the world, there are also differences in language (obvious), culture and customs which can impact on how priority issues are identified and classified. The 22 Island States and Territories of the Pacific Islands would identify more with each other and their larger neighbours, than say the Caribbean or Indian Ocean States. On the earlier comment about some island states in the Pacific are EU rather than AP, this is probably more a political issue as they are states or territories under the control of France, much as .AS and .GM are US territories. This is probably a whole new debate which is likely not for this list. Regards, Rajnesh Singh www.picisoc.org Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I'm wondering if the comments Carlton Samuels made recently are relevant here with respect to all Small Island States.
Would there be value in discussing whether or not all small island states might be either:
1) Their own region - irrespective of their physical location; 2) In a region of their own, but also associated with the region they are geographically in.
On 08/02/07, * Franck Martin* <franck.martin@gmail.com <mailto:franck.martin@gmail.com>> wrote:
The problem with the Asia/Pacific grouping is that the Pacific Islands receive so little funds that most of the things that can be done is an assessment study, and no more funds for implementation...
Also the issues are quite different from the Asia and Pacific Islands.
Finally, NC and PF fell more linked to FR than to the other Pacific Islands. This is also true for PW, GM, AS which are more linked to US.
Complex scenario....
On 2/8/07, *Roberto Gaetano* <roberto@icann.org <mailto:roberto@icann.org>> wrote:
I think that also Frank, from the Pacific Islands, might have something to add to this (re: the fact that some islands are AP, some EU).
RG
> -----Original Message----- > From: euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > [mailto:euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf > Of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: 07 February 2007 14:57 > To: nashton@spamcop.net <mailto:nashton@spamcop.net>; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [EURO-ALS] [ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on > makeup of ICANNRegions underway > > 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. > > I encouraged our Puerto Rican ALS applicants to comment > directly, but we should further recall that at least some of > them feel they'd be better served by participating in the LAC region. > > --Wendy > bracing for the set of bounces from regional lists... > > > > For the full text of the consultation announcement, please visit > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm.
-- Kind regards, Rajnesh D. Singh COO, PATARA www.patarapacific.com Chairman, Pacific Islands Chapter, Internet Society www.picisoc.org President, IPv6 Forum Pacific Islands www.ipv6forumpacific.org Director, Pacific Internet Technology Centre www.pacificit.org 310 Princes Road Tamavua Suva Fiji Tel: +679 332 0606 Fax: +679 332 0800 Read my ramblings at http://singh-a-blog.blogspot.com/
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
I'm wondering if the comments Carlton Samuels made recently are relevant here with respect to all Small Island States.
Would there be value in discussing whether or not all small island states might be either:
1) Their own region - irrespective of their physical location; 2) In a region of their own, but also associated with the region they are geographically in.
As a caveat to this discussion, keep in mind that at this point in time the addition of a region in ICANN implies the expansion of all the bodies that have a regional structure to accommodate representatives of the new region; the original design was to have a very limited number of regions, all more or less the same size (even if this is clearly untrue for Asia/Pacific) and thus having the same quantitative representation. If you wanted to create many new regions, or regions much smaller than the others, or "double region" affiliations... all of this would require significant changes in the Bylaws, in cost allocations, in representational mechanisms, and in the way ICANN works. This isn't an impossible feat - and there definitely are parts of the world that are not well represented, while others are clearly overrepresented - but I don't want to give illusions to anyone that creating new regions (as opposed to moving some territories from one region to another, which is the intended subject of the consultation) would be an easy change. Perhaps there would be ways to address this problem other than creating further regions. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
If I were asked to choose between 1) and 2), it would be 2). It would be important, IMO, to be positioned geographically. Whilst being a small island state anywhere in the world generally has some common issues and challenges with another small island state elsewhere in the world, there are also differences in language (obvious), culture and customs which can impact on how priority issues are identified and classified. The 22 Island States and Territories of the Pacific Islands would identify more with each other and their larger neighbours, than say the Caribbean or Indian Ocean States. On the earlier comment about some island states in the Pacific are EU rather than AP, this is probably more a political issue as they are states or territories under the control of France, much as .AS and .GM are US territories. This is probably a whole new debate which is likely not for this list. Regards, Rajnesh Singh www.picisoc.org Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I'm wondering if the comments Carlton Samuels made recently are relevant here with respect to all Small Island States.
Would there be value in discussing whether or not all small island states might be either:
1) Their own region - irrespective of their physical location; 2) In a region of their own, but also associated with the region they are geographically in.
On 08/02/07, * Franck Martin* <franck.martin@gmail.com <mailto:franck.martin@gmail.com>> wrote:
The problem with the Asia/Pacific grouping is that the Pacific Islands receive so little funds that most of the things that can be done is an assessment study, and no more funds for implementation...
Also the issues are quite different from the Asia and Pacific Islands.
Finally, NC and PF fell more linked to FR than to the other Pacific Islands. This is also true for PW, GM, AS which are more linked to US.
Complex scenario....
On 2/8/07, *Roberto Gaetano* <roberto@icann.org <mailto:roberto@icann.org>> wrote:
I think that also Frank, from the Pacific Islands, might have something to add to this (re: the fact that some islands are AP, some EU).
RG
> -----Original Message----- > From: euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > [mailto:euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf > Of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: 07 February 2007 14:57 > To: nashton@spamcop.net <mailto:nashton@spamcop.net>; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [EURO-ALS] [ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on > makeup of ICANNRegions underway > > 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. > > I encouraged our Puerto Rican ALS applicants to comment > directly, but we should further recall that at least some of > them feel they'd be better served by participating in the LAC region. > > --Wendy > bracing for the set of bounces from regional lists... > > > > For the full text of the consultation announcement, please visit > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm.
-- Kind regards, Rajnesh D. Singh COO, PATARA www.patarapacific.com Chairman, Pacific Islands Chapter, Internet Society www.picisoc.org President, IPv6 Forum Pacific Islands www.ipv6forumpacific.org Director, Pacific Internet Technology Centre www.pacificit.org 310 Princes Road Tamavua Suva Fiji Tel: +679 332 0606 Fax: +679 332 0800 Read my ramblings at http://singh-a-blog.blogspot.com/
Can we get a working group to report on the discussions to-date - both at ICANN, WSIS, and at other internet Governance related fora where discussions on on this topic have taken place to a certain extent ? robert On 8-Feb-07, at 7:31 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I'm wondering if the comments Carlton Samuels made recently are relevant here with respect to all Small Island States.
Would there be value in discussing whether or not all small island states might be either:
1) Their own region - irrespective of their physical location; 2) In a region of their own, but also associated with the region they are geographically in.
On 08/02/07, Franck Martin <franck.martin@gmail.com> wrote: The problem with the Asia/Pacific grouping is that the Pacific Islands receive so little funds that most of the things that can be done is an assessment study, and no more funds for implementation...
Also the issues are quite different from the Asia and Pacific Islands.
Finally, NC and PF fell more linked to FR than to the other Pacific Islands. This is also true for PW, GM, AS which are more linked to US.
Complex scenario....
On 2/8/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote: I think that also Frank, from the Pacific Islands, might have something to add to this (re: the fact that some islands are AP, some EU).
RG
-----Original Message----- From: euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 07 February 2007 14:57 To: nashton@spamcop.net; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-ALS] [ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeup of ICANNRegions underway
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.
I encouraged our Puerto Rican ALS applicants to comment directly, but we should further recall that at least some of them feel they'd be better served by participating in the LAC region.
--Wendy bracing for the set of bounces from regional lists...
For the full text of the consultation announcement, please visit http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.ica
nn.org
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-ALS mailing list EURO-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-als_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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.org
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin@gmail.com "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard
-- -- 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
participants (4)
-
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Rajnesh D. Singh -
Robert Guerra -
Vittorio Bertola