Hi all, I am just checking, here. The deadline for regional comments is tomorrow night on the Geographic Regions Statement. Here is the link to the comments made by other regions: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Interim+Report+of+Geographic+Reg... Do we wish to submit a comment on this? D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 979-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca
On 27 January 2011 10:49, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Hi all,
I am just checking, here. The deadline for regional comments is tomorrow night on the Geographic Regions Statement. Here is the link to the comments made by other regions:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Interim+Report+of+Geographic+Reg...
Do we wish to submit a comment on this?
Don't think there's much for our three-country region to contribute. The only issues even of marginal interest (about which I've seen no discussion) are: - Whether some parts of the Caribbean identify more with North America than South America - The status of protectorates that "belong" to one country but are located in a different region (ie, do we 'trade' Guam for St. Pierre?) In all, I may have some opinions, but nothing strong enough to constitute the basic for a regional statement. This issue means a great deal more to other regions. - Evan
Hi Evan, That fully states my personal opinion, too. We just have to put something in, even if its "we don't care" or "we are fine with the status quo". Staff has nudged me and told me we have to put in SOMETHING. So, unless anybody would like to issue some kind of a statement for the region, our reply will be along the lines of "we are fine wtih the status quo". D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 979-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Evan Leibovitch [evan@telly.org] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:11 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Geographic Regions Statement On 27 January 2011 10:49, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Hi all,
I am just checking, here. The deadline for regional comments is tomorrow night on the Geographic Regions Statement. Here is the link to the comments made by other regions:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Interim+Report+of+Geographic+Reg...
Do we wish to submit a comment on this?
Don't think there's much for our three-country region to contribute. The only issues even of marginal interest (about which I've seen no discussion) are: - Whether some parts of the Caribbean identify more with North America than South America - The status of protectorates that "belong" to one country but are located in a different region (ie, do we 'trade' Guam for St. Pierre?) In all, I may have some opinions, but nothing strong enough to constitute the basic for a regional statement. This issue means a great deal more to other regions. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 27 January 2011 11:28, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Hi Evan,
That fully states my personal opinion, too. We just have to put something in, even if its "we don't care" or "we are fine with the status quo". Staff has nudged me and told me we have to put in SOMETHING.
So, unless anybody would like to issue some kind of a statement for the region, our reply will be along the lines of "we are fine wtih the status quo".
How about something along the lines of "we are OK with the current situation in NA but encourage the work of other At-Large regions in which the current system may be seen to require change." or somthing like that.
This sounds about right to me. The Caribbean issues do need to be addressed in the process however. Gareth On 2011-01-27, at 8:32 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 27 January 2011 11:28, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Hi Evan,
That fully states my personal opinion, too. We just have to put something in, even if its "we don't care" or "we are fine with the status quo". Staff has nudged me and told me we have to put in SOMETHING.
So, unless anybody would like to issue some kind of a statement for the region, our reply will be along the lines of "we are fine wtih the status quo".
How about something along the lines of "we are OK with the current situation in NA but encourage the work of other At-Large regions in which the current system may be seen to require change."
or somthing like that. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 27 January 2011 12:18, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
This sounds about right to me.
The Caribbean issues do need to be addressed in the process however.
I have been told that this issue is actually being debated as an issue internal to LACRALO, and I'm personally hesitant to get NA involved. The Caribbean contingent is not known for its shyness, and will no doubt make its interests well known. In casual conversations I have been asked for my personal opinion, if I would foresee any hostility or opposition *if* some LAC members wanted to join NA. I replied that I did not believe any such hostility would exist -- but I clearly said that as representative of nothing beyond my own viewpoint. I'm very conscious of the fine line between meddling and wanting to be helpful. Maybe I'm being a little too self-silencing, but the rest of the ICANN world already sees itself as getting lectured to by North Americans. IMO, if we have something to say about someone else's regional business it had *better* be both novel and useful. - Evan
In that case, I think NA should affirmatively say nothing, despite staff's pestering. --Wendy On 01/27/2011 02:07 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 27 January 2011 12:18, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
This sounds about right to me.
The Caribbean issues do need to be addressed in the process however.
I have been told that this issue is actually being debated as an issue internal to LACRALO, and I'm personally hesitant to get NA involved. The Caribbean contingent is not known for its shyness, and will no doubt make its interests well known.
In casual conversations I have been asked for my personal opinion, if I would foresee any hostility or opposition *if* some LAC members wanted to join NA. I replied that I did not believe any such hostility would exist -- but I clearly said that as representative of nothing beyond my own viewpoint.
I'm very conscious of the fine line between meddling and wanting to be helpful. Maybe I'm being a little too self-silencing, but the rest of the ICANN world already sees itself as getting lectured to by North Americans. IMO, if we have something to say about someone else's regional business it had *better* be both novel and useful.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Hi Wendy, The pestering is not coming from staff. It's coming from corners that are looking to put forward an ITU-like model that lumps the entirety of the Western Hemisphere under a single "Americas" region. In this regard, I've been told that even a "hold the status quo" message is preferable to "no comment" which implies " everyone else can do whatever they want" So I'm propose this wording: "NARALO finds that the current situation in this region is satisfactory but encourages the work of other At-Large regions in which the current system may be seen to require change.We would strongly oppose any regional model (such as the ITU) that would amalgamate all of the Western Hemisphere into a single "Americas" region." Is anyone here *in favour* of merging the two Americas regions? - Evan On 27 January 2011 14:17, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
In that case, I think NA should affirmatively say nothing, despite staff's pestering.
--Wendy
On 01/27/2011 02:07 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 27 January 2011 12:18, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
This sounds about right to me.
The Caribbean issues do need to be addressed in the process however.
I have been told that this issue is actually being debated as an issue internal to LACRALO, and I'm personally hesitant to get NA involved. The Caribbean contingent is not known for its shyness, and will no doubt make its interests well known.
In casual conversations I have been asked for my personal opinion, if I would foresee any hostility or opposition *if* some LAC members wanted to join NA. I replied that I did not believe any such hostility would exist -- but I clearly said that as representative of nothing beyond my own viewpoint.
I'm very conscious of the fine line between meddling and wanting to be helpful. Maybe I'm being a little too self-silencing, but the rest of the ICANN world already sees itself as getting lectured to by North Americans. IMO, if we have something to say about someone else's regional business it had *better* be both novel and useful.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Evan, Thank you so much for coming up with this extremely well thought out and useful wording. D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 979-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Evan Leibovitch [evan@telly.org] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:29 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Geographic Regions Statement Hi Wendy, The pestering is not coming from staff. It's coming from corners that are looking to put forward an ITU-like model that lumps the entirety of the Western Hemisphere under a single "Americas" region. In this regard, I've been told that even a "hold the status quo" message is preferable to "no comment" which implies " everyone else can do whatever they want" So I'm propose this wording: "NARALO finds that the current situation in this region is satisfactory but encourages the work of other At-Large regions in which the current system may be seen to require change.We would strongly oppose any regional model (such as the ITU) that would amalgamate all of the Western Hemisphere into a single "Americas" region." Is anyone here *in favour* of merging the two Americas regions? - Evan On 27 January 2011 14:17, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
In that case, I think NA should affirmatively say nothing, despite staff's pestering.
--Wendy
On 01/27/2011 02:07 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 27 January 2011 12:18, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
This sounds about right to me.
The Caribbean issues do need to be addressed in the process however.
I have been told that this issue is actually being debated as an issue internal to LACRALO, and I'm personally hesitant to get NA involved. The Caribbean contingent is not known for its shyness, and will no doubt make its interests well known.
In casual conversations I have been asked for my personal opinion, if I would foresee any hostility or opposition *if* some LAC members wanted to join NA. I replied that I did not believe any such hostility would exist -- but I clearly said that as representative of nothing beyond my own viewpoint.
I'm very conscious of the fine line between meddling and wanting to be helpful. Maybe I'm being a little too self-silencing, but the rest of the ICANN world already sees itself as getting lectured to by North Americans. IMO, if we have something to say about someone else's regional business it had *better* be both novel and useful.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Yes, well done, Evan! Gareth On 2011-01-27, at 11:44 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Evan,
Thank you so much for coming up with this extremely well thought out and useful wording.
D
Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 979-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Evan Leibovitch [evan@telly.org] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:29 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Geographic Regions Statement
Hi Wendy,
The pestering is not coming from staff.
It's coming from corners that are looking to put forward an ITU-like model that lumps the entirety of the Western Hemisphere under a single "Americas" region.
In this regard, I've been told that even a "hold the status quo" message is preferable to "no comment" which implies " everyone else can do whatever they want"
So I'm propose this wording:
"NARALO finds that the current situation in this region is satisfactory but encourages the work of other At-Large regions in which the current system may be seen to require change.We would strongly oppose any regional model (such as the ITU) that would amalgamate all of the Western Hemisphere into a single "Americas" region."
Is anyone here *in favour* of merging the two Americas regions?
- Evan
On 27 January 2011 14:17, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
In that case, I think NA should affirmatively say nothing, despite staff's pestering.
--Wendy
On 01/27/2011 02:07 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 27 January 2011 12:18, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
This sounds about right to me.
The Caribbean issues do need to be addressed in the process however.
I have been told that this issue is actually being debated as an issue internal to LACRALO, and I'm personally hesitant to get NA involved. The Caribbean contingent is not known for its shyness, and will no doubt make its interests well known.
In casual conversations I have been asked for my personal opinion, if I would foresee any hostility or opposition *if* some LAC members wanted to join NA. I replied that I did not believe any such hostility would exist -- but I clearly said that as representative of nothing beyond my own viewpoint.
I'm very conscious of the fine line between meddling and wanting to be helpful. Maybe I'm being a little too self-silencing, but the rest of the ICANN world already sees itself as getting lectured to by North Americans. IMO, if we have something to say about someone else's regional business it had *better* be both novel and useful.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Thanks for the clarification. No opposition to your statement. --Wendy On 01/27/2011 02:29 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Wendy,
The pestering is not coming from staff.
It's coming from corners that are looking to put forward an ITU-like model that lumps the entirety of the Western Hemisphere under a single "Americas" region.
In this regard, I've been told that even a "hold the status quo" message is preferable to "no comment" which implies " everyone else can do whatever they want"
So I'm propose this wording:
"NARALO finds that the current situation in this region is satisfactory but encourages the work of other At-Large regions in which the current system may be seen to require change.We would strongly oppose any regional model (such as the ITU) that would amalgamate all of the Western Hemisphere into a single "Americas" region."
Is anyone here *in favour* of merging the two Americas regions?
- Evan
On 27 January 2011 14:17, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
In that case, I think NA should affirmatively say nothing, despite staff's pestering.
--Wendy
On 01/27/2011 02:07 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 27 January 2011 12:18, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
This sounds about right to me.
The Caribbean issues do need to be addressed in the process however.
I have been told that this issue is actually being debated as an issue internal to LACRALO, and I'm personally hesitant to get NA involved. The Caribbean contingent is not known for its shyness, and will no doubt make its interests well known.
In casual conversations I have been asked for my personal opinion, if I would foresee any hostility or opposition *if* some LAC members wanted to join NA. I replied that I did not believe any such hostility would exist -- but I clearly said that as representative of nothing beyond my own viewpoint.
I'm very conscious of the fine line between meddling and wanting to be helpful. Maybe I'm being a little too self-silencing, but the rest of the ICANN world already sees itself as getting lectured to by North Americans. IMO, if we have something to say about someone else's regional business it had *better* be both novel and useful.
- Evan
On 1/27/11 2:29 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Is anyone here *in favour* of merging the two Americas regions?
I don't think the scary ITU is the only point of reference. There are Indians who see the Americas partitioned, and Indians who see the Americas as a whole. My preference is the latter, so I am in favor of a single region. Eric
Eric, I'm just curiious, Since you are the representative for all of the unaffiliated users here, are you representing them in this statement? Thank you for any clarification, D Darlene A. Thompson ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Eric Brunner-Williams [ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:25 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Geographic Regions Statement On 1/27/11 2:29 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Is anyone here *in favour* of merging the two Americas regions?
I don't think the scary ITU is the only point of reference. There are Indians who see the Americas partitioned, and Indians who see the Americas as a whole. My preference is the latter, so I am in favor of a single region. Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 27 January 2011 15:25, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
There are Indians who see the Americas partitioned, and Indians who see the Americas as a whole. My preference is the latter, so I am in favor of a single region.
So let me get this straight. Your response to aboriginal under-representation and insufficient geographical diversity ... is to reduce representation and lessen geographical diversity? This appears to make no sense. I think I understand the principled stand you're trying to make, Eric, but IMO you're not doing the cause of diverse any favours by arguing in favour of amalgamation. As they exist now, LACRALO and NARALO have very different "personalities", both of which would IMO be significantly diminished in a process of forced homogenization. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Evan, Get yourself straight any way you can, the exclusion of Mexico from North America ensures that Anglophones, and perhaps the token Francophone (singular), will be preferentially selected every time ICANN attempts to meet a regional diversity goal. This leaves 50 million residents of the United States and Canada, only represented through a second European language. I pointed out the fact that the Greenland Home Rule government, while a dependency of the Danish State, is an Indigenous government of the Americas. This drew a confused response from Darlene Thompson who apparently confuses governments, like the one she works for, with immigrant non-European languages. The geographic region issue is about iso3166 states, not languages, and the exclusion of Mexico from "North America" is as irrational as putting Greenland or Quebec in "Europe". I pointed out the fact that migration has changed the largest indigenous language in the US from Dine (Navajo) to Nahuatl, Mixtex and Zapotec, approximating the unified Ojib-Crees in Canada as a group, and separating Indigenous migrants along the hyper-militarized US frontier is as absurd as Canada's refusal to abide by the Jay Treaty (1794), allowing free passage of Indians between the US and Canada. This drew the surprising 21st-century-Indians-speak-English response from John Levine, utterly missing the importance of language and cultural de-assimilation to assimilated Indians, and the reality that Indian migrants from Indian communities in Mexico retain locality in North America, due to the ease of first-language and shared values. I don't know what to do with mention-Indians-get-Hindi. I don't know what to do with mention-migration-get-English-only either. I do know that today Jefferson Keel, Chickasaw Nation, delivered the State of Indian Nations address, and today is a really lame ass day to subordinate Indian interests to non-Indian interests, for something as ephemeral as the ITU boogie man, or Anglo self-preference. I understand most of NARALO is Anglophone, and Anglophones have their issues with non-Anglophones, but where I grew up Spanish was as common as English and was Mexico until the middle of the 19th century. My pointing out that Indians are structurally overlooked by ICANN's North American centric structure hasn't changed that a wit in ten years. Mexican Indians are Indians. It doesn't do Indians in the Americas a wit of good to ignore the largest population of Indians in the Americas north of Panama, or ignore the largest population of Indians speaking Indian languages in the United States. Eric
I like Evan's wording. On Jan 27, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Wendy,
The pestering is not coming from staff.
It's coming from corners that are looking to put forward an ITU-like model that lumps the entirety of the Western Hemisphere under a single "Americas" region.
In this regard, I've been told that even a "hold the status quo" message is preferable to "no comment" which implies " everyone else can do whatever they want"
So I'm propose this wording:
"NARALO finds that the current situation in this region is satisfactory but encourages the work of other At-Large regions in which the current system may be seen to require change.We would strongly oppose any regional model (such as the ITU) that would amalgamate all of the Western Hemisphere into a single "Americas" region."
Is anyone here *in favour* of merging the two Americas regions?
- Evan
On 27 January 2011 14:17, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
In that case, I think NA should affirmatively say nothing, despite staff's pestering.
--Wendy
On 01/27/2011 02:07 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 27 January 2011 12:18, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
This sounds about right to me.
The Caribbean issues do need to be addressed in the process however.
I have been told that this issue is actually being debated as an issue internal to LACRALO, and I'm personally hesitant to get NA involved. The Caribbean contingent is not known for its shyness, and will no doubt make its interests well known.
In casual conversations I have been asked for my personal opinion, if I would foresee any hostility or opposition *if* some LAC members wanted to join NA. I replied that I did not believe any such hostility would exist -- but I clearly said that as representative of nothing beyond my own viewpoint.
I'm very conscious of the fine line between meddling and wanting to be helpful. Maybe I'm being a little too self-silencing, but the rest of the ICANN world already sees itself as getting lectured to by North Americans. IMO, if we have something to say about someone else's regional business it had *better* be both novel and useful.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I was assuming this was being dealt with by LACRALO, Evan. I agree that we shouldn't meddle, but I agree with you that I can see no reason why NARALO wouldn't be open to some ALSes from that region joining us if that proved to be the outcome. Gareth On 2011-01-27, at 11:07 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 27 January 2011 12:18, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote: This sounds about right to me.
The Caribbean issues do need to be addressed in the process however.
I have been told that this issue is actually being debated as an issue internal to LACRALO, and I'm personally hesitant to get NA involved. The Caribbean contingent is not known for its shyness, and will no doubt make its interests well known.
In casual conversations I have been asked for my personal opinion, if I would foresee any hostility or opposition *if* some LAC members wanted to join NA. I replied that I did not believe any such hostility would exist -- but I clearly said that as representative of nothing beyond my own viewpoint.
I'm very conscious of the fine line between meddling and wanting to be helpful. Maybe I'm being a little too self-silencing, but the rest of the ICANN world already sees itself as getting lectured to by North Americans. IMO, if we have something to say about someone else's regional business it had *better* be both novel and useful.
- Evan
Darlene, I'd like to see a statement that the indigenous character of the Greenland Home Rule government is harmed, if only in theory, by the construction of Greenland as a part of Europe. I'd also like to see a statement that the indigenous character of North America is harmed, if only in theory, buy the construction of North America as limited to the Francophone and Anglophone dominated nation states. For those not looking, some of the largest native language populations in the United States (and the North American Region as ICANN constructs it) are Nahuatl, Mixtex and Zapotec. If the three major Mayan languages, Yucatec, Tzeital and Tzotzil) are counted as "Mayan", it should be counted as well. These are right up there with Cree (counted like "Mayan" as a single language"), or Slavey (same). Eric
I have a question about this, Eric: Mexico is not part of NARALO, so do your observations on Mayan languages still hold up? As far as languages go, we have always had to use the official languages of the countries involved so, in this case, it is English, French and Spanish. I need to hear from others if we now want to push to include other languages. If we do this we will be opening the doors to all kinds of other language groups, too. How about Cantonese? Hindi? There are tons of immigrants in North America that speak other languages, too. D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 979-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Eric Brunner-Williams [ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:45 AM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Geographic Regions Statement Darlene, I'd like to see a statement that the indigenous character of the Greenland Home Rule government is harmed, if only in theory, by the construction of Greenland as a part of Europe. I'd also like to see a statement that the indigenous character of North America is harmed, if only in theory, buy the construction of North America as limited to the Francophone and Anglophone dominated nation states. For those not looking, some of the largest native language populations in the United States (and the North American Region as ICANN constructs it) are Nahuatl, Mixtex and Zapotec. If the three major Mayan languages, Yucatec, Tzeital and Tzotzil) are counted as "Mayan", it should be counted as well. These are right up there with Cree (counted like "Mayan" as a single language"), or Slavey (same). Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
It's my understanding that this undertaking is about the groupings of existing political entities (countries, territiories, etc) into regions. This has nothing to do with language, "national character" or the internal foundations of political entitles, else this WG's global list of issues would be far too complex (and well beyond ICANN's core competencies) to cope with. I don't know enough to comment about the status of Greenland, which has self-rule yet is still bound by the foreign and fiscal policies of Denmark. I would prefer to hear from a potential ALS within Greenland, to find out where *they* would prefer to be, rather than having outsiders dictate their preference. If NARALO wants to make a general statement on the regional assignment of territorial and partially-autonomous entities, that's quite appropriate if desired. (I personally have no strong opinion on this, though I would lean towards allowing potential ALSs the ability to choose their preferred regions at the time of application.) Having said that, IMO it would be inappropriate to make comment beyond that scope. - Evan
- Whether some parts of the Caribbean identify more with North America than South America - The status of protectorates that "belong" to one country but are located in a different region (ie, do we 'trade' Guam for St. Pierre?)
Puerto Rico was the only significant question I was aware of, since its population is greater than that of all the other debatable islands combined. France will never ever consent to putting DOM and TOM anywhere but Europe, so most of these questions are moot. I don't think we care whether the anglophone Caribbean is in NA or LAC, it's fine either way. (I have a mild preference for NA, since that increases the chance that we can take junkets there.) With respect to Eric's note, it is my impression that in the 21st century, the members of the linguistic groups he mentioned are pretty competent in English, French, or Spanish, so while it may be an interesting political point, it's hard to see how it presents any impediment to ICANN getting its work done. Perhaps Darlene can say whether her neighbors find it a problem that we only do English and French, not Inuktitut. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
On 1/27/11 2:42 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
With respect to Eric's note, it is my impression that in the 21st century, the members of the linguistic groups he mentioned are pretty competent in ...
Farmwork outreach in California and elsewhere and elsewhere is conducted several indigenous languages, those I mentioned in particular. How anyone forms their impressions is their own responsibility.
participants (7)
-
Antony Van Couvering -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
Gareth Shearman -
John R. Levine -
Thompson, Darlene -
Wendy Seltzer