RE : Re: [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
I support Wolf's suggestion: the ICANN map of regions is inconsistant with reality. Yes, stiching Armenia onto the fabric of the Pacific is gross. But we need to take this action a step further. It is time to draw attention to the geo-srategic anomalies of the current arrangement. Example: bundling together the whole of Asia and the Pacific has provided some countries (Australia, New Zealand) with an advantage, not only in comparison with much larger populations (China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan...), but also in relation to much smaller ones. While NA and LA broadly reflect reality, ICANN's current geography is unfair in Europe or AP. One is even led to wonder if the initial choice was not made deliberately to favour some countries (say "white" English-speaking) to the detriment of others? It's high time for ICANN to make its map of regions more credible for the twenty-first century. And the ALAC can spearhead such a move. Jean-Jacques. -------- Message d'origine -------- De : Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date : 03/01/2014 8:34 (GMT+01:00) A : Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Cc : EURALO LIST <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dea all, while I completely agree with the points you are raising regarding the anomaly of the current geographical regions, I would like to remind you that the ALAC was asked a very specific task: to agree or disagree on the final report of the Geographic Regions Working Group. The WG has been in operation for several years and has looked at each and every point you are all making already. So the ALAC cannot spearhead anything except if it wants to show, alone, that it hasn't been paying attention to what its members, Carlton Samuels and Cheryl Langdon Orr, were doing for two years within the Geo Regions WG. At this very late final stage, I asked Tijani to keep our comments as short as possible. We are commenting on a *final report* of a working group that has now completed its work. Re: making an initial choice to deliberately favour some countries, I remind you that the initial choice, as explained in the report, came from the UN List of Countries and Territories, so you'll have to complain to the UN for this. Kind regards, Olivier On 03/01/2014 09:37, jjs wrote:
I support Wolf's suggestion: the ICANN map of regions is inconsistant with reality. Yes, stiching Armenia onto the fabric of the Pacific is gross.
But we need to take this action a step further. It is time to draw attention to the geo-srategic anomalies of the current arrangement. Example: bundling together the whole of Asia and the Pacific has provided some countries (Australia, New Zealand) with an advantage, not only in comparison with much larger populations (China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan...), but also in relation to much smaller ones. While NA and LA broadly reflect reality, ICANN's current geography is unfair in Europe or AP.
One is even led to wonder if the initial choice was not made deliberately to favour some countries (say "white" English-speaking) to the detriment of others?
It's high time for ICANN to make its map of regions more credible for the twenty-first century. And the ALAC can spearhead such a move.
Jean-Jacques.
-------- Message d'origine -------- De : Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date : 03/01/2014 8:34 (GMT+01:00) A : Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Cc : EURALO LIST <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
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
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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Olivier, it's not as if I was not aware of the work which has been going on for years. When serving on the Board, I had addressed the problem too. Here are specific answers to your remarks: - "ALAC was asked a very specific task: to agree or disagree...". That's part of the problem, not the solution. If a majority of the Working Group decides that things should not change, then following the "business as usual" rule will not bring about the required change. - "... the initial choice, as explained in the report, came from the UN list (...), so you'll have to complain to the UN for this". In strategic terms, it is never in the interest of a beneficiary to question the method which gave her/him/it an advantage in the first place. Your observations seems to suggest that because the initial model was the UN, therefore it was legitimate (I don't question that) and therefore that those choices remain valid (which I question). - The bottom line is this: we can of course be the disciplined pupil and answer "yes" or "no"; or we can use this opportunity to point out that, for a number of reasons which have accrued over the years, this binary choice is NO LONGER satisfactory. Taking the latter position would require a more fundamental questioning about the adequacy of the current system, and also require the ALAC to suggest corrective measures. The suggested EURALO position, which I support, takes us in that direction. - My suggestion is that the ALAC - indicate that in order not to hold up the ongoing WG exercise, the ALAC abstains (thus showing respect for the work accomplished, including by its 2 representatives, but considering the outcome as unsatisfactory), - call for a more fundamental review, with a one-year or 2-year timeline. Such a review should be determined more explicitly by the realities of today and the probabilities of tomorrow. The initial contribution of the ALAC could be a list of the points that, in the current system, constitute a serious discrepancy between the inherited (UN) model and the challenges for ICANN and for the Internet in this early 21st century. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> To: "jjs" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Wolf Ludwig" <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Sent: Vendredi 3 Janvier 2014 10:29:14 Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] RE : Re: [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace Dea all, while I completely agree with the points you are raising regarding the anomaly of the current geographical regions, I would like to remind you that the ALAC was asked a very specific task: to agree or disagree on the final report of the Geographic Regions Working Group. The WG has been in operation for several years and has looked at each and every point you are all making already. So the ALAC cannot spearhead anything except if it wants to show, alone, that it hasn't been paying attention to what its members, Carlton Samuels and Cheryl Langdon Orr, were doing for two years within the Geo Regions WG. At this very late final stage, I asked Tijani to keep our comments as short as possible. We are commenting on a *final report* of a working group that has now completed its work. Re: making an initial choice to deliberately favour some countries, I remind you that the initial choice, as explained in the report, came from the UN List of Countries and Territories, so you'll have to complain to the UN for this. Kind regards, Olivier On 03/01/2014 09:37, jjs wrote:
I support Wolf's suggestion: the ICANN map of regions is inconsistant with reality. Yes, stiching Armenia onto the fabric of the Pacific is gross.
But we need to take this action a step further. It is time to draw attention to the geo-srategic anomalies of the current arrangement. Example: bundling together the whole of Asia and the Pacific has provided some countries (Australia, New Zealand) with an advantage, not only in comparison with much larger populations (China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan...), but also in relation to much smaller ones. While NA and LA broadly reflect reality, ICANN's current geography is unfair in Europe or AP.
One is even led to wonder if the initial choice was not made deliberately to favour some countries (say "white" English-speaking) to the detriment of others?
It's high time for ICANN to make its map of regions more credible for the twenty-first century. And the ALAC can spearhead such a move.
Jean-Jacques.
-------- Message d'origine -------- De : Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date : 03/01/2014 8:34 (GMT+01:00) A : Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Cc : EURALO LIST <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
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
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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Thank you for your follow-up Jean-Jacques. On 03/01/2014 11:16, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
- My suggestion is that the ALAC - indicate that in order not to hold up the ongoing WG exercise, the ALAC abstains (thus showing respect for the work accomplished, including by its 2 representatives, but considering the outcome as unsatisfactory),
Please be so kind to detail what is unsatisfactory. The report of the Geo Regions WG shows the extent to which many different solutions were considered and shows that no better solution was found. A degree of flexibility (which the ALAC had asked for) for self-determination was added for countries that border two regions.
- call for a more fundamental review, with a one-year or 2-year timeline. Such a review should be determined more explicitly by the realities of today and the probabilities of tomorrow. The initial contribution of the ALAC could be a list of the points that, in the current system, constitute a serious discrepancy between the inherited (UN) model and the challenges for ICANN and for the Internet in this early 21st century.
Wasn't the Geo Regions WG this more fundamental review? Are you asking to restart the work at the beginning? I find it highly improbable that throwing two more years at this subject will yield any other result. That said, if we do not find consensus, I can indeed let the WG know of the ALAC's abstention in the matter. But some in our community are waiting to be able to implement self-determination ASAP. Kind regards, Olivier
Thanks for these further elaborations, Olivier! Just to get clear about when you say, "A degree of flexibility (which the ALAC had asked for) for self-determination was added for countries that border two regions." and "... some in our community are waiting to be able to implement self-determination ASAP." This sound promising indeed. But does this mean that our Armenian friends, for example, could make use of this new self-determination and ask to join EURALO -- what all of their ALSes wanted right from the beginning? Would such a new flexible regulation for particular border cases apply only for future applications or include existing cases as well? If applicable, there would be some space for improvement and not just a perpetuation of the existing order. Kind regards, Wolf Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote Fri, 03 Jan 2014 18:34:
Thank you for your follow-up Jean-Jacques.
On 03/01/2014 11:16, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
- My suggestion is that the ALAC - indicate that in order not to hold up the ongoing WG exercise, the ALAC abstains (thus showing respect for the work accomplished, including by its 2 representatives, but considering the outcome as unsatisfactory),
Please be so kind to detail what is unsatisfactory. The report of the Geo Regions WG shows the extent to which many different solutions were considered and shows that no better solution was found. A degree of flexibility (which the ALAC had asked for) for self-determination was added for countries that border two regions.
- call for a more fundamental review, with a one-year or 2-year timeline. Such a review should be determined more explicitly by the realities of today and the probabilities of tomorrow. The initial contribution of the ALAC could be a list of the points that, in the current system, constitute a serious discrepancy between the inherited (UN) model and the challenges for ICANN and for the Internet in this early 21st century.
Wasn't the Geo Regions WG this more fundamental review? Are you asking to restart the work at the beginning? I find it highly improbable that throwing two more years at this subject will yield any other result.
That said, if we do not find consensus, I can indeed let the WG know of the ALAC's abstention in the matter. But some in our community are waiting to be able to implement self-determination ASAP.
Kind regards,
Olivier
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear Wolf, thanks for your follow-up. On 03/01/2014 21:09, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Thanks for these further elaborations, Olivier!
Just to get clear about when you say, "A degree of flexibility (which the ALAC had asked for) for self-determination was added for countries that border two regions." and "... some in our community are waiting to be able to implement self-determination ASAP." This sound promising indeed. But does this mean that our Armenian friends, for example, could make use of this new self-determination and ask to join EURALO -- what all of their ALSes wanted right from the beginning? I refer you to the executive summary point 8:
"The Working Group recommends that the Board should direct Staff to prepare and maintain ICANN's own unique organizational table that clearly shows the allocation of countries and territories (as defined by ISO 3166) to its existing five Geographic Regions. The initial allocation should reflect the status quo of the current assignments. However, Staff should also develop and implement a process to permit stakeholder communities in countries or territories to pursue, if they wish, re-assignment to a geographic region that they consider to be more appropriate for their jurisdiction." This is exactly what the ALAC asked in a prior Statement. Paragraph 60: (recommendation G) is pretty clear about this: "In order to protect the sovereignty and right of self-determination of states, the Working Group recommends that every country and territory should have the opportunity to request a move to another geographic region. The request should be initiated or supported by the local government of the relevant country or territory and should take into account the views of the local internet community." Paragraph 63 reinforces this.
Would such a new flexible regulation for particular border cases apply only for future applications or include existing cases as well?
Existing cases too.
If applicable, there would be some space for improvement and not just a perpetuation of the existing order.
This is the main point that the Geo Regions WG is making. Full set of recommendations is in paragraph 40 and each recommendation is detailed in the pages following that paragraph. Kind regards, Olivier
Dear all, The assignment of countries and territories in the UN list that ICANN regions is based upon has been made for statistical convenience (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm) only and "does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations". In the UN context, for purposes of regional representation and elections (including, eg., selecting government representatives for IGF MAG and other Internet Governance -related bodies) the member states are divided into five geopolitical groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Regional_Groups). Since the ICANN regions basically serve the same function (ensuring equitable regional representation to various bodies), it would be logical to use this latter UN list as a model for ICANN regions. Correcting the present anomaly should at least be set as a long-term goal. Best, Yrjö
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 10:29:14 +0100 From: ocl@gih.com To: jjs@dyalog.net; euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] RE : Re: [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
Dea all,
while I completely agree with the points you are raising regarding the anomaly of the current geographical regions, I would like to remind you that the ALAC was asked a very specific task: to agree or disagree on the final report of the Geographic Regions Working Group. The WG has been in operation for several years and has looked at each and every point you are all making already. So the ALAC cannot spearhead anything except if it wants to show, alone, that it hasn't been paying attention to what its members, Carlton Samuels and Cheryl Langdon Orr, were doing for two years within the Geo Regions WG. At this very late final stage, I asked Tijani to keep our comments as short as possible. We are commenting on a *final report* of a working group that has now completed its work.
Re: making an initial choice to deliberately favour some countries, I remind you that the initial choice, as explained in the report, came from the UN List of Countries and Territories, so you'll have to complain to the UN for this.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 03/01/2014 09:37, jjs wrote:
I support Wolf's suggestion: the ICANN map of regions is inconsistant with reality. Yes, stiching Armenia onto the fabric of the Pacific is gross.
But we need to take this action a step further. It is time to draw attention to the geo-srategic anomalies of the current arrangement. Example: bundling together the whole of Asia and the Pacific has provided some countries (Australia, New Zealand) with an advantage, not only in comparison with much larger populations (China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan...), but also in relation to much smaller ones. While NA and LA broadly reflect reality, ICANN's current geography is unfair in Europe or AP.
One is even led to wonder if the initial choice was not made deliberately to favour some countries (say "white" English-speaking) to the detriment of others?
It's high time for ICANN to make its map of regions more credible for the twenty-first century. And the ALAC can spearhead such a move.
Jean-Jacques.
-------- Message d'origine -------- De : Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date : 03/01/2014 8:34 (GMT+01:00) A : Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Cc : EURALO LIST <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
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
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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
A few considerations. The problem of the geographic regions is a complex one, involving several different considerations. Different constituencies have forced the current situation for their own interest deviating from the initial UN Countries and Territories list. For instance, already at the start, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands have been lumped together with Asia in an unmanageable AP region. Later on, GAC members and ccTLD members have obtained a nonsensical (from the internet users' point of view) change, moving territories all over the world under Europe, just because they were colonies of European countries. This has determined the difficulty for local communities to operate with their neighbors, who have similar problems and operate in the same time zone. Puerto Rico, that we all believe to be in the Caribbean, is in NA - it is in this capacity that the ICANN meeting #29 has been held there. These change have been done without minding (actually, not even asking) the consensus of the community. I don't see why ALAC now has to endorse a majority view if it is convinced that the proposal is not fair, or does not address the questions that we have raised time and again over the years. It is not a major disaster not to have consensus. It would be, however, a major problem and a breach of the fiduciary relationship with our members, to fail to reiterate our position. This should not be disrespectful to our representatives to the working group, but can be the indication that this issue cannot be put to rest, because the problems have not been solved (not even addressed). Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Inviato: venerdì 3 gennaio 2014 10:29 A: jjs; Discussion for At-Large Europe; Wolf Ludwig Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] RE : Re: [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
Dea all,
while I completely agree with the points you are raising regarding the anomaly of the current geographical regions, I would like to remind you that the ALAC was asked a very specific task: to agree or disagree on the final report of the Geographic Regions Working Group. The WG has been in operation for several years and has looked at each and every point you are all making already. So the ALAC cannot spearhead anything except if it wants to show, alone, that it hasn't been paying attention to what its members, Carlton Samuels and Cheryl Langdon Orr, were doing for two years within the Geo Regions WG. At this very late final stage, I asked Tijani to keep our comments as short as possible. We are commenting on a *final report* of a working group that has now completed its work.
Re: making an initial choice to deliberately favour some countries, I remind you that the initial choice, as explained in the report, came from the UN List of Countries and Territories, so you'll have to complain to the UN for this.
Kind regards,
Olivier
I support Wolf's suggestion: the ICANN map of regions is inconsistant with reality. Yes, stiching Armenia onto the fabric of the Pacific is gross.
But we need to take this action a step further. It is time to draw attention to the geo-srategic anomalies of the current arrangement. Example: bundling together the whole of Asia and the Pacific has provided some countries (Australia, New Zealand) with an advantage, not only in comparison with much larger populations (China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan...), but also in relation to much smaller ones. While NA and LA broadly reflect reality, ICANN's current geography is unfair in Europe or AP.
One is even led to wonder if the initial choice was not made deliberately to favour some countries (say "white" English-speaking) to the detriment of others?
It's high time for ICANN to make its map of regions more credible for the twenty-first century. And the ALAC can spearhead such a move.
Jean-Jacques.
-------- Message d'origine -------- De : Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date : 03/01/2014 8:34 (GMT+01:00) A : Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Cc : EURALO LIST <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
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
On 03/01/2014 09:37, jjs wrote: -
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
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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
Plus 1, Roberto -- thanks! As you suggested, I think the best way out in such a situation or dilemma would be for ALAC to "respectfully abstain". This is at least what I would like to recommend to our ALAC representatives in this matter. Kind regards, Wolf Roberto Gaetano wrote Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:59:
A few considerations.
The problem of the geographic regions is a complex one, involving several different considerations. Different constituencies have forced the current situation for their own interest deviating from the initial UN Countries and Territories list. For instance, already at the start, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands have been lumped together with Asia in an unmanageable AP region. Later on, GAC members and ccTLD members have obtained a nonsensical (from the internet users' point of view) change, moving territories all over the world under Europe, just because they were colonies of European countries. This has determined the difficulty for local communities to operate with their neighbors, who have similar problems and operate in the same time zone. Puerto Rico, that we all believe to be in the Caribbean, is in NA - it is in this capacity that the ICANN meeting #29 has been held there. These change have been done without minding (actually, not even asking) the consensus of the community. I don't see why ALAC now has to endorse a majority view if it is convinced that the proposal is not fair, or does not address the questions that we have raised time and again over the years. It is not a major disaster not to have consensus. It would be, however, a major problem and a breach of the fiduciary relationship with our members, to fail to reiterate our position. This should not be disrespectful to our representatives to the working group, but can be the indication that this issue cannot be put to rest, because the problems have not been solved (not even addressed).
Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Inviato: venerdì 3 gennaio 2014 10:29 A: jjs; Discussion for At-Large Europe; Wolf Ludwig Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] RE : Re: [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
Dea all,
while I completely agree with the points you are raising regarding the anomaly of the current geographical regions, I would like to remind you that the ALAC was asked a very specific task: to agree or disagree on the final report of the Geographic Regions Working Group. The WG has been in operation for several years and has looked at each and every point you are all making already. So the ALAC cannot spearhead anything except if it wants to show, alone, that it hasn't been paying attention to what its members, Carlton Samuels and Cheryl Langdon Orr, were doing for two years within the Geo Regions WG. At this very late final stage, I asked Tijani to keep our comments as short as possible. We are commenting on a *final report* of a working group that has now completed its work.
Re: making an initial choice to deliberately favour some countries, I remind you that the initial choice, as explained in the report, came from the UN List of Countries and Territories, so you'll have to complain to the UN for this.
Kind regards,
Olivier
I support Wolf's suggestion: the ICANN map of regions is inconsistant with reality. Yes, stiching Armenia onto the fabric of the Pacific is gross.
But we need to take this action a step further. It is time to draw attention to the geo-srategic anomalies of the current arrangement. Example: bundling together the whole of Asia and the Pacific has provided some countries (Australia, New Zealand) with an advantage, not only in comparison with much larger populations (China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan...), but also in relation to much smaller ones. While NA and LA broadly reflect reality, ICANN's current geography is unfair in Europe or AP.
One is even led to wonder if the initial choice was not made deliberately to favour some countries (say "white" English-speaking) to the detriment of others?
It's high time for ICANN to make its map of regions more credible for the twenty-first century. And the ALAC can spearhead such a move.
Jean-Jacques.
-------- Message d'origine -------- De : Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date : 03/01/2014 8:34 (GMT+01:00) A : Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Cc : EURALO LIST <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
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
On 03/01/2014 09:37, jjs wrote: -
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
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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
participants (6)
-
jjs -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
-
Wolf Ludwig -
Yrjö Länsipuro