Dear Wolf: I agree that EURALO should re-submit the 2011 statement, as you propose. Happy New Year CW On 03 Jan 2014, at 03:12, "Wolf Ludwig (Confluence)" <no-reply@icann.org> wrote:

<avatar_793e33665df27bee6180f6a56831b0e6.jpeg> Wolf Ludwig added a comment to the page: <comment-icon.png> At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace I have submitted an EURALO position already on ICANN's geographic regions during the last consultations round (in January 2011) – with no result or consideration. I think that the first two points of our statement are still relevant from our regional (European) POV: (...)

1. However, when we were looking at the key references for the definition of the existing ICANN regions we found out that most of them are UN-based and applied by the UN system. The UN references are predominant and make sense for many parts of the world but they do not necessarily reflect the extraordinary diversity of (ICANN) regions like Asia-Pacific and Europe. From a European point of view and perspective, the standards and definitions set by the Council of Europe (CoE) are broadly relevant, accepted and important. And many countries are part of Europe and its regional definition – according to CoE standards – which are situated in the East – see: http://www.ena.lu/member_states_european_organisations_2008-021000009.html

Some of these countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan or Georgia are members of the CoE but considered in other classification models (incl. ICANN) as part of the Asian region. We therefore suggest that the definitions and classifications by the Council of Europe are taken into consideration as well in the ICANN context.

2. In recent years, EURALO had some discussions with people from Eastern countries like Armenia and Azerbaijan who expressed strong interest in joining and participating in our RALO, arguing that they have a stronger affinity to Europe than to the Asian region (for historical, cultural etc. reasons). We always had to reassure them that they “formally” and, according to ICANN definitions, are part of APRALO. When we were arguing before to maintain the existing regional model at ICANN as a general rule, we would like to suggest some considerations on exceptional or border cases and to introduce a new “principle of self-determination” for such particular border cases. We are conscious that exceptions always need to be well justified to avoid abuses. And such a “principle of self-determination” needs to be further discussed and specified on particular circumstances, procedures of consultations, mutual approval and decision-making. In the given example of Armenia or Azerbaijan, a consultation process with the regions concerned (APRALO and EURALO) would be indispensable. And a decision on any exceptional application could be taken with the approval by both RALOs concerned only (sort of mutual recognition procedure – MRP). We are aware that there is always a justified fear of undesired precedence involved, but such a “principle of self-determination” is recognised in international law as well.

(...)

Thanks for taking our concerns into account.

View Online · Like · Reply To This Stop watching page · Manage Notifications This message was sent by Atlassian Confluence 5.1.5, Team Collaboration Software