On 28 January 2011 14:58, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
Layer 1 and 2 (physical and link) onnectivity is more of a concern than layer 3 (routing) and layer 4 (DNS) services.
Issues about the lower levels are beyond our scope, and ICANN already has enough problems with mission creep. The whole point of this discussion is to address our position on what ICANN -- and sepcifically here wrt geographic regional alignment -- can do to better the participation of participation of indiginous end-users (amongst others) in policy making at the DNS layer. I like Avri's wording and have included it in the NARALO statement -- with the apparent approval of all who have commented on it so far. As for which region should include Mexico, Central America, Greenland, the Caribbean, etc, I'm neutral because any stance I would take would IMO be needless meddling. I would leave those determinations to the local residents, while being prepared with a warm and unconditional welcome should they wish to be a part of our region. - Evan