[ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeup of ICANN Regions underway
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
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.icann.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/
I've sent the email on to some Caribbean contacts - there's the same concern from Guadeloupe and Martinique (apparently currently France) Jacqueline Quoting Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
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.icann.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-lists.icann.org
-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com
That's exactly where the whole story started, few years ago, to bring GP and MQ into Europe. I tried my best to make the point htat it was not a wise idea, but was unsuccessful. _____ From: euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of jam@jacquelinemorris.com Sent: 07 February 2007 15:13 To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-ALS] [ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeup ofICANN Regions underway I've sent the email on to some Caribbean contacts - there's the same concern from Guadeloupe and Martinique (apparently currently France) Jacqueline Quoting Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>:
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.icann.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-lists.icann.org
-- Jacqueline A. Morris www.jacquelinemorris.com
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
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... ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
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...
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
-- -- 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
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...
And if we make both things? Regards Alberto Soto IIISI ----- Mensaje original ----- De: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Para: <nashton@spamcop.net>; <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Enviado: Miércoles, 07 de Febrero de 2007 11:55 a.m. Asunto: Re: [LAC-ALS] [ALAC] [NA-ALS] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeupof ICANN Regions underway
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...
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ LAC-ALS mailing list LAC-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-als_atlarge-lists.icann....
Danny Younger wrote:
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 [...] It may be less that this was ignored and more that it was deemed politically impractical.
India and Pakistan generally don't consider themselves part of the middle east, and putting Israel together with its neighbours is almost always a non-starter. Stuff that seems logical with a pen and a map just doesn't happen that easily. The above alignment will never happen.
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...
I hear you. Still, the oblivion apparent in the original recommendation is remarkable. - Evan
The discussion on and about country regions , has if i'm not mistaken also taken place at many other fora - such as the UN, FIFA, Olympics, etc. Wolfgang Kleinwachter posted a good summary a few months ago - will try to find it. In the meantime, it would be worthwhile looking up the references on Wikipedia . Here's the one for FIFA... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FIFA_country_codes Evan is correct, Israel tends to be placed - most of the time - not with its neighbors but with europe. regards Robert On 7-Feb-07, at 7:13 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
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 [...] It may be less that this was ignored and more that it was deemed politically impractical.
India and Pakistan generally don't consider themselves part of the middle east, and putting Israel together with its neighbours is almost always a non-starter.
Stuff that seems logical with a pen and a map just doesn't happen that easily. The above alignment will never happen.
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...
I hear you. Still, the oblivion apparent in the original recommendation is remarkable.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________ NA-ALS mailing list NA-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-als_atlarge- lists.icann.org
If you recall, there was some discussion of that issue at the Sao Paulo meeting. There is widespread sentiment in the Caribbean that the historic linkage to Latin America in multilateral relations and organizations has been at the expense of Caribbean interests; they say and Caribbean tends to mean just that, almost an afterthought. Beyond the emotional response, the arguments for a separate Caribbean identity tend to be energized by the language and cultural differences + the socioeconomic indicators that are more aligned with those of so-called Small Island States [SIDS in the UN Lexicon!]. We have seen at least one ALS in the recent past voice strong opinions for a separate Caribbean identity with respect to the ICANN Geographic Regions. I suspect there are other views that might be elicited. Carlton. [Spanish Version] Si usted recuerda, había alguna discusión de ese asunto en la reunión de Sao Paulo. Hay sentimiento esparcido en el Caribe que la unión histórica a Iberoamérica en relaciones y organizaciones multilaterales ha estado a costa de intereses Caribes; ellos dicen "y Caribe" tiende a significar apenas eso, casi una reflexión. Más allá de la respuesta emocional, los argumentos para una identidad Caribe separada tienden a ser vigorizados por el idioma y diferencias culturales + los indicadores socioeconómicas que más son alineados con ésos de Pequeños Estados llamados de la Isla [SIDS en el Léxico de NNUU!]. Hemos visto por lo menos un AL en el pasado reciente expresan las opiniones fuertes para una identidad caribe separada con respecto al ICANN las Regiones Geográficas. Sospecho hay otras vistas que quizás sean sacadas. Carlton _____ From: lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:41 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: uaew@eim.ae Subject: [LAC-ALS] [ALAC] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeup of ICANN Regions underway 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
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
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 -----------------------------------------------
participants (12)
-
alberto soto -
Carlton A Samuels -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
jam＠jacquelinemorris.com -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Omar Kaminski -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Robert Guerra -
Roberto Gaetano -
Siavash Shahshahani -
Wendy Seltzer