Trip to Caucasus - conclusions and recommendations
I would like to conclude this sequence of messages with some final consideration and proposals for action. As usual, separate messages for different lists. Regional issue There is wide unhappiness in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) about being considered in the Asia-Pacific-Australasia region, they would rather be included in the European region. I have included some of the rationale in my previous messages, but just to summarize, it is about preferential partnership with Europe for Internet projects, long term plans to join the European Union, being already considered part of Europe in other cases related to music and sport, the proximity to Europe more than to the Pacific rim, and, last but not least, that for IP addresses and ccTLDs often these countries are members of the European regional organizations (RIPE and CENTR). There is an ongoing activity to rethink the ICANN regions. These considerations should be brought forward in that context (actually, I believe that this is the case already, but I would like to bring this item to the attention of the whole ALAC community). IDNs I have noted only mild interest about IDNs in my discussions with the local community. This was a surprise to me, in particular considering that two countries have a different script and the third one has several special characters added to the latin script. Is this a matter of fact, i.e. IDNs will not bring much to the local internet community, neither in terms of business opportunities nor in terms of ease of use by the community, or does this show a lack of promotion and advertisement of the IDNs by ICANN and its stakeholders? I think that this is a serious question: are we spending a lot of resources for something that is only of mild interest, or are we jeopardizing huge efforts by not advertising enough to our community? Also, I have an additional question. This is the feedback I have from the South Caucasus region, but what is the situation in other parts of the world? Does anybody have other types of info? I guess that the deployment of the first IDNs will give a partial answer to this question, but do we really need to wait more to take appropriate marketing steps for what is one of the major innovations in the DNS, and one of ICANN's success stories? Outreach - 1 In my report from Armenia I spoke about the "blank spot" on the ICANN penetration map. Without any doubt, we have much to do in relation to At-Large outreach in the former Soviet Union. ALAC is present with ALSes in very few of these countries, and completely absent in all the "stans". This is related to the situation about human rights, government control, freedom of press, and so on. However, aren't we in a vicious circle? In other words, which is the cause and which is the effect? Had we some active users organizations, wouldn't these be able to influence the government? I think that people living in that reality can contribute more to this debate than somebody like me, who only was there visiting, but unless the local community in the CIS (Community of Independent States) tell me loud and clear that there's nothing we can do to change the situation, I will continue thinking that developing At-Large community and structures must be one of our priorities. If we believe in the multi-stakeholder model, we must be committed to develop this model where it is not fully implemented. I would recommend to have a meeting of the Outreach WG in Durban. I know it is late in the game, but I don't think we need a large room and a long time, if it is not possible to have an "official" meeting I would at least hope that the members of the WG can get together at the bar to have a chat. But of course a meeting with staff support, minutes, and a clear action list as a result would be better. Incidentally, I hope that Veni will be in Durban, because his contribution is essential. I learned that there is already sub-regional collaboration for technical issues related to the internet, and that the internet technical community of the former Soviet Union countries already meets regularly. Shall we seek to have a couple of (Russian-speaking) ALAC members participating, to explore collaboration opportunities? About 10 years ago I went to a CENTR meeting to promote links between the ccTLDs and the forming ALAC. Nothing came out of it, but in time we had some developments, including ccTLD operators joining At-Large. But if we never start, we will never get anywhere. Outreach - 2 Besides outreach to specific geographical areas, it seems that we need outreach plans for specific stakeholder groups. First of all, I had confirmation of something we all had observed over the years: the lack of interest by the scientific and research community in ICANN activities. Is this a matter of fact, i.e. there is no reason why the internet scientific and research community should participate in Internet Governance activities, or do we have here another case of lack of marketing of ICANN's role? The key question is what can ICANN, and ALAC, offer to this community so that we can establish collaboration? If we establish collaboration on specific projects, we will naturally see a higher interest in participation by them. Again, there is probably one simple way: to participate, as observers, to some of the activities that the internet scientific and research community is performing. We need a couple of ALAC members that are technically competent, to be respected by the other participants, that can understand and report what are the needs and priorities, and then we can analyse the implications for the user community and propose contributions. Also, we need to take into account the more general question: "What can ICANN do for the user community?". I am under the impression that, although ALAC has grown in size and importance, the core of our group is still composed by idealists who debate matters of principle. Matters of principle are surely important, but we need also to address some practical needs. For instance, what do we do in support of registrants, to make them better aware of their rights and to help them when they get in trouble with their suppliers? The development of the new TLD programme might make this aspect even more critical. Can we think of training activities, done by ALSes in collaboration with other bodies? I am sure that some ALSes do already this, for instance ISOC chapters are involved in user training, but how much are these experiences shared within ALAC, and used as example for building new activities? For instance, at the ISOC Armenia meeting I spoke with Narine Khachatryan (Media Education Center), who told me about a "train the trainer" programme, an experience that could be interesting to other ALSes. Should we include in the ATLAS II programme some time for sharing these experiences? There are discussions already going on in terms of budget, I do not want to interfere here with the official bodies that are making decisions now, but I strongly believe that ALAC, as a grown-up adult, should be entitled to manage a part of the budget for initiatives that can be decided when the opportunity comes, without having to go for a long and cumbersome approval cycle. If this is done, we should have a budget item earmarked for "Outreach" where we can decide activities that we will perform with the objective of improving our penetration in the wide At-Large community worldwide. Last but not least, when we talk about "Digital Divide" we often think in terms of developing countries vs. industrialized world. However, there are other divides within each country. The experience in the South Caucasus made me aware of the divide between cities and countryside, the problems of scarcely populated areas (I believe we already have an example of ALS operating in Canada in this type of environment), the divide between the digital natives and the others (Tijani might remember a discussion we had in Tunisia years ago about the effort in doing something to help elderly people). I think these are things we need to start thinking about if we want to go to the next step in ALAC's life, which is to be more relevant in the internet community's everyday life, and I am sure that this will bring new people, new organizations, new ideas, and will drive the multi-stakeholder model to a higher level of implementation. Cheers, Roberto
Dear Roberto, thanks for your report. On 10/07/2013 19:43, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I have included some of the rationale in my previous messages, but just to summarize, it is about preferential partnership with Europe for Internet projects, long term plans to join the European Union, being already considered part of Europe in other cases related to music and sport, the proximity to Europe more than to the Pacific rim, and, last but not least, that for IP addresses and ccTLDs often these countries are members of the European regional organizations (RIPE and CENTR).
There is an ongoing activity to rethink the ICANN regions. These considerations should be brought forward in that context (actually, I believe that this is the case already, but I would like to bring this item to the attention of the whole ALAC community).
Yes, this is indeed a subject addressed by the ICANN Geographic Regions Working Group and the ALAC has made its comments known wrt this during the drafting/public comment phase of that process. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-19dec11-en.htm The ICANN Geo Regions WG has published its final report: https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22jun13-en.htm Next steps, as I understand it from this announcement, is that the ALAC will be asked to comment on this final report and will have 90 days to respond starting from the end of the ICANN meeting in Durban. Staff will create a WIKI page for this matter and I will ask for a volunteer from the At-Large community to hold the pen. Kind regards, Olivier
Dear Roberto, Thank you very much for your reports and especially for all your recommendations. You extremely clear identify major problems for understanding the role and mission of ICANN in post-Soviet space. 1. Regional issue. I would like to repeat again and again, that there is " wide unhappiness" not only "in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) about being considered in the Asia-Pacific-Australasia region" instead of being included into the European region, but also in other East-European countries (for example, in Ukraine). Being in one team can help us much more easy to overcome post-totalitarian past, to promote multistakeholderism, to defend freedom and openness of Internet. I fully support your propositions and final report of ICANN Geographic Regions Working Group (which is written in extremely balanced manner and does not demand any immediate seismic shakes, but provides a lot of opportunities for self-identification). And I will be happy if ALAC will support this final report. 2. IDNs. My obsession with Ukrainian IDN cost me a lot, nevertheless I am insisting on the importance of this issue. This is the best example of the lack of trust into ICANN in our community, of miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from both sides (ICANN and Ukrainian applicant for .ykp). I highly appreciate Rinalia and Sebastien interest to this problem, and I have to say, that, with their help, we had a lot of progress regarding this issue. Nevertheless, IDNs (and ccTLDs at the first place) have to be in center of At-Large attention. I proposed to oblige ICANN staff to inform all national representatives within ICANN (ALSes, GAC representatives, members of ccNSO and gNSO and so on) directly about any question of special concern for their country or region. I was said that it would be discussed in Durban. If I have to make now any further official steps to push this initiative forward, please let me know. Outreach - 1 Roberto wrotes: ALAC is present with ALSes in very few of these countries, and completely absent in all the "stans". This is related to the situation about human rights, government control, freedom of press, and so on. However, aren't we in a vicious circle? In other words, which is the cause and which is the effect? Had we some active users organizations, wouldn't these be able to influence the government? This is extremely important question for countries without democratic traditions, grass-root activities and culture of active civic participation. And it's a pity that I couldn't participate in your meeting in Durban. I will resend your letter to Dmitry Kokhmanjuk, ccTLD .ua administrator (member of ccNSO), who is now in Durban. I hope he can provide you with a lot of information. And I am happy to invite you to ENOG VI (http://www.enog.org/meetings/enog-6/), which will gather RIPE NCC Regional Meeting Russia/EURASIA Network Operators' Group in Kiev on 1-2 October, and then for IV Ukrainian IGF (3 October - with participants from Russia, Bellorussia, maybe Armenia and Azerbaijan). Outreach -2 You (and Narine) are absolutely right - it's absolutely necessary to "train the trainer", especially in national languages. More over, it's extremely important to work out adequate terminology on IG in national language (for post-Soviet countries it is crucially important to have it at least in Russian), and also to draw attention of journalists and social media activists to IG issues. So, I will be extremely happy to support all your propositions and to be involved in their implementation in practical way! Best regards and nice time in Durban, Oksana On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear Roberto,
thanks for your report.
On 10/07/2013 19:43, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I have included some of the rationale in my previous messages, but just to summarize, it is about preferential partnership with Europe for Internet projects, long term plans to join the European Union, being already considered part of Europe in other cases related to music and sport, the proximity to Europe more than to the Pacific rim, and, last but not least, that for IP addresses and ccTLDs often these countries are members of the European regional organizations (RIPE and CENTR).
There is an ongoing activity to rethink the ICANN regions. These considerations should be brought forward in that context (actually, I believe that this is the case already, but I would like to bring this item to the attention of the whole ALAC community).
Yes, this is indeed a subject addressed by the ICANN Geographic Regions Working Group and the ALAC has made its comments known wrt this during the drafting/public comment phase of that process. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-19dec11-en.htm
The ICANN Geo Regions WG has published its final report: https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22jun13-en.htm
Next steps, as I understand it from this announcement, is that the ALAC will be asked to comment on this final report and will have 90 days to respond starting from the end of the ICANN meeting in Durban. Staff will create a WIKI page for this matter and I will ask for a volunteer from the At-Large community to hold the pen.
Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Just for the record - I have not seen the "lack of trust" Oksana is writing about "in the communit", especially I haven't seen "the lack of trust into ICANN in our community, of miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from both sides (ICANN and Ukrainian applicant for .ykp)." I have seen different people unhappy about different aspects of what they think ICANN should be doing, and I have seen people unhappy with the IDN fast track (shall I mention .bg IDN?). But that's different from the words, used by Oksana. If there has been miscommunication, please, let the regional VPs know about it. Likewise, if you believe ICANN has done or hasn't done something, esp. if required by our policies, let us (me and Nigel) know. Thanks. Veni, VP, GSE. On Sunday, July 14, 2013, EMP wrote:
Dear Roberto,
Thank you very much for your reports and especially for all your recommendations. You extremely clear identify major problems for understanding the role and mission of ICANN in post-Soviet space.
1. Regional issue.
I would like to repeat again and again, that there is " wide unhappiness" not only "in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) about being considered in the Asia-Pacific-Australasia region" instead of being included into the European region, but also in other East-European countries (for example, in Ukraine). Being in one team can help us much more easy to overcome post-totalitarian past, to promote multistakeholderism, to defend freedom and openness of Internet.
I fully support your propositions and final report of ICANN Geographic Regions Working Group (which is written in extremely balanced manner and does not demand any immediate seismic shakes, but provides a lot of opportunities for self-identification). And I will be happy if ALAC will support this final report.
2. IDNs.
My obsession with Ukrainian IDN cost me a lot, nevertheless I am insisting on the importance of this issue. This is the best example of the lack of trust into ICANN in our community, of miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from both sides (ICANN and Ukrainian applicant for .ykp). I highly appreciate Rinalia and Sebastien interest to this problem, and I have to say, that, with their help, we had a lot of progress regarding this issue.
Nevertheless, IDNs (and ccTLDs at the first place) have to be in center of At-Large attention. I proposed to oblige ICANN staff to inform all national representatives within ICANN (ALSes, GAC representatives, members of ccNSO and gNSO and so on) directly about any question of special concern for their country or region. I was said that it would be discussed in Durban. If I have to make now any further official steps to push this initiative forward, please let me know.
Outreach - 1
Roberto wrotes:
ALAC is present with ALSes in very few of these countries, and completely absent in all the "stans". This is related to the situation about human rights, government control, freedom of press, and so on. However, aren't we in a vicious circle? In other words, which is the cause and which is the effect? Had we some active users organizations, wouldn't these be able to influence the government?
This is extremely important question for countries without democratic traditions, grass-root activities and culture of active civic participation. And it's a pity that I couldn't participate in your meeting in Durban. I will resend your letter to Dmitry Kokhmanjuk, ccTLD .ua administrator (member of ccNSO), who is now in Durban. I hope he can provide you with a lot of information. And I am happy to invite you to ENOG VI (http://www.enog.org/meetings/enog-6/), which will gather RIPE NCC Regional Meeting Russia/EURASIA Network Operators' Group in Kiev on 1-2 October, and then for IV Ukrainian IGF (3 October - with participants from Russia, Bellorussia, maybe Armenia and Azerbaijan).
Outreach -2
You (and Narine) are absolutely right - it's absolutely necessary to "train the trainer", especially in national languages. More over, it's extremely important to work out adequate terminology on IG in national language (for post-Soviet countries it is crucially important to have it at least in Russian), and also to draw attention of journalists and social media activists to IG issues.
So, I will be extremely happy to support all your propositions and to be involved in their implementation in practical way!
Best regards and nice time in Durban,
Oksana
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com
wrote:
Dear Roberto,
thanks for your report.
On 10/07/2013 19:43, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I have included some of the rationale in my previous messages, but just to summarize, it is about preferential partnership with Europe for Internet projects, long term plans to join the European Union, being already considered part of Europe in other cases related to music and sport, the proximity to Europe more than to the Pacific rim, and, last but not least, that for IP addresses and ccTLDs often these countries are members of the European regional organizations (RIPE and CENTR).
There is an ongoing activity to rethink the ICANN regions. These considerations should be brought forward in that context (actually, I believe that this is the case already, but I would like to bring this item to the attention of the whole ALAC community).
Yes, this is indeed a subject addressed by the ICANN Geographic Regions Working Group and the ALAC has made its comments known wrt this during the drafting/public comment phase of that process.
http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-19dec11-en.htm
The ICANN Geo Regions WG has published its final report: https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22jun13-en.htm
Next steps, as I understand it from this announcement, is that the ALAC will be asked to comment on this final report and will have 90 days to respond starting from the end of the ICANN meeting in Durban. Staff will create a WIKI page for this matter and I will ask for a volunteer from the At-Large community to hold the pen.
Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Best, Veni http://veni.com https://facebook.com/venimarkovski https://twitter.com/veni *** The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to him in any given way. *** == Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by the touchscreen keyboard. That's a nice excuse, isn't it;-)
Veni, you are absolutely right, situations with .bg and .ykp are rather similar (but the results are opposite). And you are ready to insist, that you did not see lack of trust into the level of linguistic expertize from ICANN regarding these issues? Best, Oksana On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com> wrote:
Just for the record - I have not seen the "lack of trust" Oksana is writing about "in the communit", especially I haven't seen
"the lack of trust into ICANN in our community, of miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from both sides (ICANN and Ukrainian applicant for .ykp)."
I have seen different people unhappy about different aspects of what they think ICANN should be doing, and I have seen people unhappy with the IDN fast track (shall I mention .bg IDN?). But that's different from the words, used by Oksana. If there has been miscommunication, please, let the regional VPs know about it. Likewise, if you believe ICANN has done or hasn't done something, esp. if required by our policies, let us (me and Nigel) know.
Thanks. Veni, VP, GSE.
On Sunday, July 14, 2013, EMP wrote:
Dear Roberto,
Thank you very much for your reports and especially for all your recommendations. You extremely clear identify major problems for understanding the role and mission of ICANN in post-Soviet space.
1. Regional issue.
I would like to repeat again and again, that there is " wide unhappiness" not only "in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) about being considered in the Asia-Pacific-Australasia region" instead of being included into the European region, but also in other East-European countries (for example, in Ukraine). Being in one team can help us much more easy to overcome post-totalitarian past, to promote multistakeholderism, to defend freedom and openness of Internet.
I fully support your propositions and final report of ICANN Geographic Regions Working Group (which is written in extremely balanced manner and does not demand any immediate seismic shakes, but provides a lot of opportunities for self-identification). And I will be happy if ALAC will support this final report.
2. IDNs.
My obsession with Ukrainian IDN cost me a lot, nevertheless I am insisting on the importance of this issue. This is the best example of the lack of trust into ICANN in our community, of miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from both sides (ICANN and Ukrainian applicant for .ykp). I highly appreciate Rinalia and Sebastien interest to this problem, and I have to say, that, with their help, we had a lot of progress regarding this issue.
Nevertheless, IDNs (and ccTLDs at the first place) have to be in center of At-Large attention. I proposed to oblige ICANN staff to inform all national representatives within ICANN (ALSes, GAC representatives, members of ccNSO and gNSO and so on) directly about any question of special concern for their country or region. I was said that it would be discussed in Durban. If I have to make now any further official steps to push this initiative forward, please let me know.
Outreach - 1
Roberto wrotes:
ALAC is present with ALSes in very few of these countries, and completely absent in all the "stans". This is related to the situation about human rights, government control, freedom of press, and so on. However, aren't we in a vicious circle? In other words, which is the cause and which is the effect? Had we some active users organizations, wouldn't these be able to influence the government?
This is extremely important question for countries without democratic traditions, grass-root activities and culture of active civic participation. And it's a pity that I couldn't participate in your meeting in Durban. I will resend your letter to Dmitry Kokhmanjuk, ccTLD .ua administrator (member of ccNSO), who is now in Durban. I hope he can provide you with a lot of information. And I am happy to invite you to ENOG VI (http://www.enog.org/meetings/enog-6/), which will gather RIPE NCC Regional Meeting Russia/EURASIA Network Operators' Group in Kiev on 1-2 October, and then for IV Ukrainian IGF (3 October - with participants from Russia, Bellorussia, maybe Armenia and Azerbaijan).
Outreach -2
You (and Narine) are absolutely right - it's absolutely necessary to "train the trainer", especially in national languages. More over, it's extremely important to work out adequate terminology on IG in national language (for post-Soviet countries it is crucially important to have it at least in Russian), and also to draw attention of journalists and social media activists to IG issues.
So, I will be extremely happy to support all your propositions and to be involved in their implementation in practical way!
Best regards and nice time in Durban,
Oksana
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com
wrote:
Dear Roberto,
thanks for your report.
On 10/07/2013 19:43, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I have included some of the rationale in my previous messages, but just to summarize, it is about preferential partnership with Europe for Internet projects, long term plans to join the European Union, being already considered part of Europe in other cases related to music and sport, the proximity to Europe more than to the Pacific rim, and, last but not least, that for IP addresses and ccTLDs often these countries are members of the European regional organizations (RIPE and CENTR).
There is an ongoing activity to rethink the ICANN regions. These considerations should be brought forward in that context (actually, I believe that this is the case already, but I would like to bring this item to the attention of the whole ALAC community).
Yes, this is indeed a subject addressed by the ICANN Geographic Regions Working Group and the ALAC has made its comments known wrt this during the drafting/public comment phase of that process.
http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-19dec11-en.htm
The ICANN Geo Regions WG has published its final report:
https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22jun13-en.htm
Next steps, as I understand it from this announcement, is that the ALAC will be asked to comment on this final report and will have 90 days to respond starting from the end of the ICANN meeting in Durban. Staff
will
create a WIKI page for this matter and I will ask for a volunteer from the At-Large community to hold the pen.
Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Best, Veni http://veni.com https://facebook.com/venimarkovski https://twitter.com/veni
*** The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to him in any given way. ***
== Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by the touchscreen keyboard. That's a nice excuse, isn't it;-) _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Oksana, I'm sure you know the process, or you could - read the fast track manual, see how it is. If there was a way to do it differently, it would have been in the documents. On Sunday, July 14, 2013, EMP wrote:
Veni, you are absolutely right, situations with .bg and .ykp are rather similar (but the results are opposite). And you are ready to insist, that you did not see lack of trust into the level of linguistic expertize from ICANN regarding these issues?
Best, Oksana
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com> wrote:
Just for the record - I have not seen the "lack of trust" Oksana is writing about "in the communit", especially I haven't seen
"the lack of trust into ICANN in our community, of miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from both sides (ICANN and Ukrainian applicant for .ykp)."
I have seen different people unhappy about different aspects of what they think ICANN should be doing, and I have seen people unhappy with the IDN fast track (shall I mention .bg IDN?). But that's different from the words, used by Oksana. If there has been miscommunication, please, let the regional VPs know about it. Likewise, if you believe ICANN has done or hasn't done something, esp. if required by our policies, let us (me and Nigel) know.
Thanks. Veni, VP, GSE.
On Sunday, July 14, 2013, EMP wrote:
Dear Roberto,
Thank you very much for your reports and especially for all your recommendations. You extremely clear identify major problems for understanding the role and mission of ICANN in post-Soviet space.
1. Regional issue.
I would like to repeat again and again, that there is " wide unhappiness" not only "in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) about being considered in the Asia-Pacific-Australasia region" instead of being included into the European region, but also in other East-European countries (for example, in Ukraine). Being in one team can help us much more easy to overcome post-totalitarian past, to promote multistakeholderism, to defend freedom and openness of Internet.
I fully support your propositions and final report of ICANN Geographic Regions Working Group (which is written in extremely balanced manner and does not demand any immediate seismic shakes, but provides a lot of opportunities for self-identification). And I will be happy if ALAC will support this final report.
2. IDNs.
My obsession with Ukrainian IDN cost me a lot, nevertheless I am insisting on the importance of this issue. This is the best example of the lack of trust into ICANN in our community, of miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from both sides (ICANN and Ukrainian applicant for .ykp). I highly appreciate Rinalia and Sebastien interest to this problem, and I have to say, that, with their help, we had a lot of progress regarding this issue.
Nevertheless, IDNs (and ccTLDs at the first place) have to be in center of At-Large attention. I proposed to oblige ICANN staff to inform all national representatives within ICANN (ALSes, GAC representatives, members of ccNSO and gNSO and so on) directly about any question of special concern for their country or region. I was said that it would be discussed in Durban. If I have to make now any further official steps to push this initiative forward, please let me know.
Outreach - 1
Roberto wrotes:
ALAC is present with ALSes in very few of these countries, and completely absent in all the "stans". This is related to the situation about human rights, government control, freedom of press, and so on. However, aren't we in a vicious circle? In other words, which is the cause and which is the effect? Had we some active users organizations, wouldn't these be able to influence the government?
This is extremely important question for countries without democratic traditions, grass-root activities and culture of active civic participation. And it's a pity that I couldn't participate in your meeting in Durban. I will resend your letter to Dmitry Kokhmanjuk, ccTLD .ua administrator (member of ccNSO), who is now in Durban. I hope he can provide you with a lot of information. And I am happy to invite you to ENOG VI ( <http://www.enog.org/meetings/enog-6/>
-- Best, Veni http://veni.com https://facebook.com/venimarkovski https://twitter.com/veni *** The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to him in any given way. *** == Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by the touchscreen keyboard. That's a nice excuse, isn't it;-)
Veni, I do not see any sense to continue discussion in this way. If you don't see any problems with Cyrillyc (may be not only Cyrillic, but at least) IDNs - I am happy for you. If anyone sees any problems - I have some explanations. Maybe they are wrong. I will highly appreciate any other points of view. I know a lot about a lot of processes in Ukraine. And I have no even minimal trust into them. It would be great to say, that the more I know about ICANN process, the more I trust it in. At this moment I can't say it. On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com> wrote:
Oksana, I'm sure you know the process, or you could - read the fast track manual, see how it is. If there was a way to do it differently, it would have been in the documents.
On Sunday, July 14, 2013, EMP wrote:
Veni, you are absolutely right, situations with .bg and .ykp are rather similar (but the results are opposite). And you are ready to insist, that you did not see lack of trust into the level of linguistic expertize from ICANN regarding these issues?
Best, Oksana
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com> wrote:
Just for the record - I have not seen the "lack of trust" Oksana is writing about "in the communit", especially I haven't seen
"the lack of trust into ICANN in our community, of miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from both sides (ICANN and Ukrainian applicant for .ykp)."
I have seen different people unhappy about different aspects of what they think ICANN should be doing, and I have seen people unhappy with the IDN fast track (shall I mention .bg IDN?). But that's different from the words, used by Oksana. If there has been miscommunication, please, let the regional VPs know about it. Likewise, if you believe ICANN has done or hasn't done something, esp. if required by our policies, let us (me and Nigel) know.
Thanks. Veni, VP, GSE.
On Sunday, July 14, 2013, EMP wrote:
Dear Roberto,
Thank you very much for your reports and especially for all your recommendations. You extremely clear identify major problems for understanding the role and mission of ICANN in post-Soviet space.
1. Regional issue.
I would like to repeat again and again, that there is " wide unhappiness" not only "in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) about being considered in the Asia-Pacific-Australasia region" instead of being included into the European region, but also in other East-European countries (for example, in Ukraine). Being in one team can help us much more easy to overcome post-totalitarian past, to promote multistakeholderism, to defend freedom and openness of Internet.
I fully support your propositions and final report of ICANN Geographic Regions Working Group (which is written in extremely balanced manner and does not demand any immediate seismic shakes, but provides a lot of opportunities for self-identification). And I will be happy if ALAC will support this final report.
2. IDNs.
My obsession with Ukrainian IDN cost me a lot, nevertheless I am insisting on the importance of this issue. This is the best example of the lack of trust into ICANN in our community, of miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from both sides (ICANN and Ukrainian applicant for .ykp). I highly appreciate Rinalia and Sebastien interest to this problem, and I have to say, that, with their help, we had a lot of progress regarding this issue.
Nevertheless, IDNs (and ccTLDs at the first place) have to be in center of At-Large attention. I proposed to oblige ICANN staff to inform all national representatives within ICANN (ALSes, GAC representatives, members of ccNSO and gNSO and so on) directly about any question of special concern for their country or region. I was said that it would be discussed in Durban. If I have to make now any further official steps to push this initiative forward, please let me know.
Outreach - 1
Roberto wrotes:
ALAC is present with ALSes in very few of these countries, and completely absent in all the "stans". This is related to the situation about human rights, government control, freedom of press, and so on. However, aren't we in a vicious circle? In other words, which is the cause and which is the effect? Had we some active users organizations, wouldn't these be able to influence the government?
This is extremely important question for countries without democratic traditions, grass-root activities and culture of active civic participation. And it's a pity that I couldn't participate in your meeting in Durban. I will resend your letter to Dmitry Kokhmanjuk, ccTLD .ua administrator (member of ccNSO), who is now in Durban. I hope he can provide you with a lot of information. And I am happy to invite you to ENOG VI ( <http://www.enog.org/meetings/enog-6/>
-- Best, Veni http://veni.com https://facebook.com/venimarkovski https://twitter.com/veni
*** The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to him in any given way. ***
== Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by the touchscreen keyboard. That's a nice excuse, isn't it;-) _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Good morning Oksana, maybe I am wrong, so please correct me if I am, but I thought that this place here (EURALO) is about giving feedback and opinions of "the public" to ICANN policies and processes. So with that in mind I think we could and should discuss the issues you are outlinining here. That would require you to go more into details - right now, there is nothing to talk about because the whole discussion consists of mentioning issues and talking between the lines. You could you clarify what the problems are, where they are and maybe even what we could do about it or at least what you would expect ICANN or others to do. Then we can continue this discussion, understand what your problems are and maybe even make a difference. Regards, Manuel Am 15.07.2013 07:24, schrieb EMP:
Veni, I do not see any sense to continue discussion in this way. If you don't see any problems with Cyrillyc (may be not only Cyrillic, but at least) IDNs - I am happy for you. If anyone sees any problems - I have some explanations. Maybe they are wrong. I will highly appreciate any other points of view. I know a lot about a lot of processes in Ukraine. And I have no even minimal trust into them. It would be great to say, that the more I know about ICANN process, the more I trust it in. At this moment I can't say it.
-- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch
I think I agree with Manuel. I don't know the details, so if we have the discussion going I need to understand what you are talking about. I believe that the IDNs are an essential part of the ICANN strategy, and we need to make it a success story. How about to start a new conversation, with an appropriate subject line? Thanks, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Manuel Schneider Inviato: lunedì 15 luglio 2013 09:05 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Trip to Caucasus - conclusions and recommendations
Good morning Oksana,
maybe I am wrong, so please correct me if I am, but I thought that this place here (EURALO) is about giving feedback and opinions of "the public" to ICANN policies and processes. So with that in mind I think we could and should discuss the issues you are outlinining here.
That would require you to go more into details - right now, there is nothing to talk about because the whole discussion consists of mentioning issues and talking between the lines.
You could you clarify what the problems are, where they are and maybe even what we could do about it or at least what you would expect ICANN or others to do.
Then we can continue this discussion, understand what your problems are and maybe even make a difference.
Regards,
Manuel
Am 15.07.2013 07:24, schrieb EMP:
Veni, I do not see any sense to continue discussion in this way. If you don't see any problems with Cyrillyc (may be not only Cyrillic, but at least) IDNs - I am happy for you. If anyone sees any problems - I have some explanations. Maybe they are wrong. I will highly appreciate any other points of view. I know a lot about a lot of processes in Ukraine. And I have no even minimal trust into them. It would be great to say, that the more I know about ICANN process, the more I trust it in. At this moment I can't say it.
-- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Roberto, Manuel - The issues with the IDN are well documented at public meetings, dating as back as ICANN San Francisco <http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22471> (there's audio there, too), and even before that - anyone can go, and research them. We have had dozens of meetings and discussions, round tables, open and close consultations. Anyone could have been part of this, and anyone can be part of it. I don't remember anyone being rejected from participation in the Fast Track. The success story of the Fast Track is the Russian IDN .rf (.??), and those of you in Durban, can talk to Andrei Kolesnikov about it. There are others, who are also successful in Eastern Europe, but the Russian one made it very successful (100,000 domain names registered in the first 3 hours after the start, and 802,346 currently). Both the Bulgarian and the Ukrainian IDN have issues, but different ones. Again - details are available online. My point of clarification was only because Oksana wrote, and I quote: "the lack of trust into ICANN in our community, of miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from both sides (ICANN and Ukrainian applicant for .ykp)" Since I have not been informed on such items in the process (by the way - for the record, the regional VPs are not part of the IDN Fast Track, we don't participate in the technical evaluation, etc.), neither by the applicant, nor by the Fast Track team, I clearly stated: "I have seen different people unhappy about different aspects of what they think ICANN should be doing, and I have seen people unhappy with the IDN fast track (shall I mention .bg IDN?). But that's different from the words, used by Oksana. If there has been miscommunication, please, let the regional VPs know about it. Likewise, if you believe ICANN has done or hasn't done something, esp. if required by our policies, let us (me and Nigel) know." There is a lot of resources here: https://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/fast-track, including two annual reviews: https://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/fast-track/reviews (you may notice that the Bulgarian community was pretty active in 2011, and not so in 2012). If people are interested in the particular case, I'd suggest that a small ad-hoc group of interested people is created, and comes with a report in a timely manner, so that the rest of the folks on this list may understand what happened. I would agree with Manuel and Roberto, if the goal here is to show how the At-Large organizations from Europe can help ICANN perform better. However, I would not agree that there is "lack of trust into ICANN in the Ukrainian community", or that there have been "miscommunication, untransperancy and unaccountability from ICANN' in the process for the Ukrainian IDN ccTLD. Such statements can only be interpreted as if ICANN is not following its own policies - in this case the IDN Fast Track. Since this is not the case, I just wanted to make this clear. Hope this is helpful. Best, Veni VP, GSE, ICANN.org On 07/15/2013 07:34, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I think I agree with Manuel. I don't know the details, so if we have the discussion going I need to understand what you are talking about. I believe that the IDNs are an essential part of the ICANN strategy, and we need to make it a success story. How about to start a new conversation, with an appropriate subject line? Thanks, Roberto
Of course I would be happy to prepare detailed information on our situation with .ykp, but it will take some time (and I will send it by separate mail). Here I would like to stress out the only one point - in Lisbon I understood that in Western Europe there is obsession with privacy. In Ukraine (I am speaking again about Ukraine, because it's not yet the case for Russia or Belorussia, for example, and is not already the case for Georgia, but in general it is extremely important item) we are obsessed with access to information. We lived before in the situation, when somebody somewhere somewhat decides regarding all of us, and we even have no right who and what. Best regards, Oksana On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think I agree with Manuel. I don't know the details, so if we have the discussion going I need to understand what you are talking about. I believe that the IDNs are an essential part of the ICANN strategy, and we need to make it a success story. How about to start a new conversation, with an appropriate subject line? Thanks, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Manuel Schneider Inviato: lunedì 15 luglio 2013 09:05 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Trip to Caucasus - conclusions and recommendations
Good morning Oksana,
maybe I am wrong, so please correct me if I am, but I thought that this place here (EURALO) is about giving feedback and opinions of "the public" to ICANN policies and processes. So with that in mind I think we could and should discuss the issues you are outlinining here.
That would require you to go more into details - right now, there is nothing to talk about because the whole discussion consists of mentioning issues and talking between the lines.
You could you clarify what the problems are, where they are and maybe even what we could do about it or at least what you would expect ICANN or others to do.
Then we can continue this discussion, understand what your problems are and maybe even make a difference.
Regards,
Manuel
Am 15.07.2013 07:24, schrieb EMP:
Veni, I do not see any sense to continue discussion in this way. If you don't see any problems with Cyrillyc (may be not only Cyrillic, but at least) IDNs - I am happy for you. If anyone sees any problems - I have some explanations. Maybe they are wrong. I will highly appreciate any other points of view. I know a lot about a lot of processes in Ukraine. And I have no even minimal trust into them. It would be great to say, that the more I know about ICANN process, the more I trust it in. At this moment I can't say it.
-- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
btw, there has been some public discussion on these issues in Ukraine, including this message (in Russian, use Google Translate) today: http://itexpert.org.ua/rubrikator/item/27908-zavershen-pervyj-etap-publichno... best, v. On 07/15/2013 10:11, EMP wrote:
Of course I would be happy to prepare detailed information on our situation with .ykp, but it will take some time (and I will send it by separate mail). Here I would like to stress out the only one point - in Lisbon I understood that in Western Europe there is obsession with privacy. In Ukraine (I am speaking again about Ukraine, because it's not yet the case for Russia or Belorussia, for example, and is not already the case for Georgia, but in general it is extremely important item) we are obsessed with access to information. We lived before in the situation, when somebody somewhere somewhat decides regarding all of us, and we even have no right who and what. Best regards, Oksana
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think I agree with Manuel. I don't know the details, so if we have the discussion going I need to understand what you are talking about. I believe that the IDNs are an essential part of the ICANN strategy, and we need to make it a success story. How about to start a new conversation, with an appropriate subject line? Thanks, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Manuel Schneider Inviato: lunedì 15 luglio 2013 09:05 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Trip to Caucasus - conclusions and recommendations
Good morning Oksana,
maybe I am wrong, so please correct me if I am, but I thought that this place here (EURALO) is about giving feedback and opinions of "the public" to ICANN policies and processes. So with that in mind I think we could and should discuss the issues you are outlinining here.
That would require you to go more into details - right now, there is nothing to talk about because the whole discussion consists of mentioning issues and talking between the lines.
You could you clarify what the problems are, where they are and maybe even what we could do about it or at least what you would expect ICANN or others to do.
Then we can continue this discussion, understand what your problems are and maybe even make a difference.
Regards,
Manuel
Am 15.07.2013 07:24, schrieb EMP:
Veni, I do not see any sense to continue discussion in this way. If you don't see any problems with Cyrillyc (may be not only Cyrillic, but at least) IDNs - I am happy for you. If anyone sees any problems - I have some explanations. Maybe they are wrong. I will highly appreciate any other points of view. I know a lot about a lot of processes in Ukraine. And I have no even minimal trust into them. It would be great to say, that the more I know about ICANN process, the more I trust it in. At this moment I can't say it.
-- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Best, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski https://twitter.com/veni The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to him in any given way.
participants (5)
-
EMP -
Manuel Schneider -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Veni Markovski