Beloved Evan and All, At-Large is not a body of career diplomats who decide whether troops or aid get sent to conflict zones. We are a bunch of volunteers representing internet users through the portal of one tiny component of a much larger body which for all practical purposes amounts to an industry trade organization-- not an international governance body. At-Large is uniquely charged with being the feeder roots to the grassroots -- "users" -- who embody the world wide web. We should be ever on the look-out for ways to accommodate those who legitimately speak for internet users within At-Large. Officially, within ICANN structure At-Large has nothing more than an advisory role. What harm does it do to let those in At-Large self- select regions, switch regions, or participate in more than one? What harm would it cause if At-Large allowed self-selection and other ICANN bodies followed different criteria? The regional criteria beyond at-large, is more tricky. May I suggest that Anglo-Americans like us should not be the loudest voices in the choir on this point? I recommend that one of our NA colleagues who's 1st language is *not* English be recruited to lead an articulation for NA on this. -Dharma Dailey On Aug 29, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
Virgin Islands, U.S. -- in Caribbean region
And, of course, Virgin Islands, U.K. is in EURALO
Yes, it looks weird as part of the region is on the other side of the world but I think we need to get down to fundamental principles in our analysis. Again, I disagree strongly. We need to get down to fundamentals of making ICANN policy like working on the RAA, Phantom Registrars, IPV6 and so on.
International geopolitics, OTOH, is not ICANN's core competency. (...comments aside about whether it has *any* core competency...) This is one field in which other groups, with better skills in this field than us, have agonized about this issue and spent decades on which imperfect answer comes closest to the goals of balance and inclusiveness.
I for one oppose more ICANN obsession with internal structure, especially when others -- with more experience in this sphere -- have already performed this task. Let's pick one of the existing recognized groupings and move on. Choosing which existing regional partition best suits ICANN's needs should be the only role of the regional-boundary committee.
Ultimately I think that the local internet community should be the ones self-selecting in which ICANN region they wish to reside.
So the map could be drawn differently from week to week depending on who wants to go where? Of course, use of a map would probably be pointless because groups could choose to identify with regions on the other side of the world.
And I can hardly wait for the first request of a Tibetan ALS that wants to be located outside of China's region.
Some people may have a taste for that particular kind of bloodsport but not me. And certainly not here.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------