For discussion at the NARALO monthly meeting: Pursuant to ICANN Board Resolution 07.92, the GNSO and other ICANN bodies were invited to provide input to the ICANN staff on a proposal by the ccNSO recommending that the ICANN Board appoint a community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN's present Geographic Regions and related issues. Concern over the proper formulation of the ICANN Geographic Regions has long been a significant part of At-Large structure-building considerations with the earliest recommendations dating back to the 2001 proposal of the At-Large Study Committee to create a Central/West/South Asia Region (CWSA) comprising India (.in), Pakistan (.pk), Afghanistan (.af), Kazakhstan (.kz), Uzbekistan (.uz), Kyrgyzstan (.kg), Turkmenistan (.tm), Tajikistan (.tj), Sri Lanka (.lk), Maldives (.mv), Iraq (.iq), Iran (.ir), Israel (.il), Syria (.sy), Jordan (.jo), Lebanon (.lb), Palestine Territories (.ps), Kuwait (.kw), UAE (.ae), Yemen (.ye), Oman (.om), Bahrain (.bh), Qatar (.qa), Saudi Arabia (.sa). The recent recommendations of the Westlake Consulting Team charged with the current ALAC review follow in this spirit by recognizing that ICANN’s geographic regional structure is not well aligned with global population distribution and is increasingly unrepresentative of world-wide Internet usage, leading Westlake to recommend increasing the number of NomCom appointees to the ALAC by two members, both of whom would be from Asia. As any change in the total number or composition of ICANN geographic Regions will impact ICANN's At-Large Structures, we formally request that an at-large representative from each current ICANN Geographic Region be included in the Board-appointed community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN's present Geographic Regions and related issues.
I have long thought that the ICANN methods for chopping up the world, both in process and result, have been drug-induced. Even the act of having the Caribbean put in LAC rather than NA seems strange. Under its regs, Puerto Rico and Guam are in NA but Jamaica is in LAC. Many global bodies, from the UN to FIFA, have dealt with the touchy issues of regional groupings. ICANN should not go anywhere near re-inventing this wheel, but rather use other well-accepted norms created elsewhere. Danny Younger wrote:
Concern over the proper formulation of the ICANN Geographic Regions has long been a significant part of At-Large structure-building considerations with the earliest recommendations dating back to the 2001 proposal of the At-Large Study Committee to create a Central/West/South Asia Region (CWSA) comprising India (.in), Pakistan (.pk), Afghanistan (.af), Kazakhstan (.kz), Uzbekistan (.uz), Kyrgyzstan (.kg), Turkmenistan (.tm), Tajikistan (.tj), Sri Lanka (.lk), Maldives (.mv), Iraq (.iq), Iran (.ir), Israel (.il), Syria (.sy), Jordan (.jo), Lebanon (.lb), Palestine Territories (.ps), Kuwait (.kw), UAE (.ae), Yemen (.ye), Oman (.om), Bahrain (.bh), Qatar (.qa), Saudi Arabia (.sa).
Of course, in such a structure Israel -- a significant global player in hi-tech in general and one of the more least-censored societies in that region -- would be aggressively silenced. (In most international groupings it's usually included in Europe.) My point here is not the resolution of in what region to put Israel, so much as to demonstrate this problem as an example of the kind of political wrangling in which ICANN has absolutely no business engaging. ICANN has enough on its plate without having to deal with the significant politics behind these issues, and is well advised to use existing standards created elsewhere rather than create its own. The inclusion of Israel in the Mideast region by the 2001 study committee, only lays bare that group's ignorance of the political nuances at play. This is not an indictment of the group so much as an illustration of ICANN's (fully understandable) unsuitability to create such boundaries on its own. It's bad enough that ICANN touches into politics in regards to ccTLDs (ie, the intensive lobbying regarding ".eh"). We should be involved in such politics as little as is absolutely possible. It should be up to other bodies, not ICANN, to determine whether (for instance) Abkhazia requires its own TLD. Same goes for defining regional divisions; we're not the only ones needing to deal with the shifts in international influence.
The recent recommendations of the Westlake Consulting Team charged with the current ALAC review follow in this spirit by recognizing that ICANN’s geographic regional structure is not well aligned with global population distribution and is increasingly unrepresentative of world-wide Internet usage, leading Westlake to recommend increasing the number of NomCom appointees to the ALAC by two members, both of whom would be from Asia.
The analysis of this that we presented at Paris found this approach horribly flawed, not in the least by its exclusive use of unaccountable appointees -- with no mandate for community accountability -- to address the issue of regional imbalance. If countries are under-represented then fix the regions. Adding two NomComms without any other regional change comes across as the weakest possible answer to this question. If AP needs to be split, then split it. (It's my personal hope that as At-Large matures that an effective ALAC can eventually be 100% representative. I fully accept that right now such level of maturity does not yet exist. But adding NomComms to ALAC without any corresponding ALS elected/accountable reps seems a step backwards.)
As any change in the total number or composition of ICANN geographic Regions will impact ICANN's At-Large Structures, we formally request that an at-large representative from each current ICANN Geographic Region be included in the Board-appointed community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN's present Geographic Regions and related issues. I believe we ought to take a position that ICANN has no business re-inventing this wheel, and should find an existing diplomatically-created regional split that we can live with.
Like ALAC, ICANN itself needs to focus on its own resources on policy; volunteers are already spread too thin. Expending such scarce resources on political issues -- in which ICANN has even less experience or credibility than usual -- is an unnecessary diversion and needless vision creep. - Evan
Let's consider ICANN's current North American Region: American Samoa -- in Asia/Pacific Guam -- in Asia/Pacific Northern Mariana Islands -- in Asia/Pacific United States Minor Outlying Islands -- in Asia/Pacific United States Canada Puerto Rico -- in Caribbean region Virgin Islands, U.S. -- in Caribbean region 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. Ultimately I think that the local internet community should be the ones self-selecting in which ICANN region they wish to reside. The difficulty, of course, arrives when contemplating the creation of new regions. --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 11:59 AM I have long thought that the ICANN methods for chopping up the world, both in process and result, have been drug-induced. Even the act of having the Caribbean put in LAC rather than NA seems strange. Under its regs, Puerto Rico and Guam are in NA but Jamaica is in LAC.
Many global bodies, from the UN to FIFA, have dealt with the touchy issues of regional groupings. ICANN should not go anywhere near re-inventing this wheel, but rather use other well-accepted norms created elsewhere.
Danny Younger wrote:
Concern over the proper formulation of the ICANN Geographic Regions has long been a significant part of At-Large structure-building considerations with the earliest recommendations dating back to the 2001 proposal of the At-Large Study Committee to create a Central/West/South Asia Region (CWSA) comprising India (.in), Pakistan (.pk), Afghanistan (.af), Kazakhstan (.kz), Uzbekistan (.uz), Kyrgyzstan (.kg), Turkmenistan (.tm), Tajikistan (.tj), Sri Lanka (.lk), Maldives (.mv), Iraq (.iq), Iran (.ir), Israel (.il), Syria (.sy), Jordan (.jo), Lebanon (.lb), Palestine Territories (.ps), Kuwait (.kw), UAE (.ae), Yemen (.ye), Oman (.om), Bahrain (.bh), Qatar (.qa), Saudi Arabia (.sa).
Of course, in such a structure Israel -- a significant global player in hi-tech in general and one of the more least-censored societies in that region -- would be aggressively silenced. (In most international groupings it's usually included in Europe.)
My point here is not the resolution of in what region to put Israel, so much as to demonstrate this problem as an example of the kind of political wrangling in which ICANN has absolutely no business engaging.
ICANN has enough on its plate without having to deal with the significant politics behind these issues, and is well advised to use existing standards created elsewhere rather than create its own. The inclusion of Israel in the Mideast region by the 2001 study committee, only lays bare that group's ignorance of the political nuances at play. This is not an indictment of the group so much as an illustration of ICANN's (fully understandable) unsuitability to create such boundaries on its own.
It's bad enough that ICANN touches into politics in regards to ccTLDs (ie, the intensive lobbying regarding ".eh"). We should be involved in such politics as little as is absolutely possible. It should be up to other bodies, not ICANN, to determine whether (for instance) Abkhazia requires its own TLD. Same goes for defining regional divisions; we're not the only ones needing to deal with the shifts in international influence.
The recent recommendations of the Westlake Consulting Team charged with the current ALAC review follow in this spirit by recognizing that ICANN’s geographic regional structure is not well aligned with global population distribution and is increasingly unrepresentative of world-wide Internet usage, leading Westlake to recommend increasing the number of NomCom appointees to the ALAC by two members, both of whom would be from Asia.
The analysis of this that we presented at Paris found this approach horribly flawed, not in the least by its exclusive use of unaccountable appointees -- with no mandate for community accountability -- to address the issue of regional imbalance. If countries are under-represented then fix the regions. Adding two NomComms without any other regional change comes across as the weakest possible answer to this question. If AP needs to be split, then split it.
(It's my personal hope that as At-Large matures that an effective ALAC can eventually be 100% representative. I fully accept that right now such level of maturity does not yet exist. But adding NomComms to ALAC without any corresponding ALS elected/accountable reps seems a step backwards.)
As any change in the total number or composition of ICANN geographic Regions will impact ICANN's At-Large Structures, we formally request that an at-large representative from each current ICANN Geographic Region be included in the Board-appointed community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN's present Geographic Regions and related issues. I believe we ought to take a position that ICANN has no business re-inventing this wheel, and should find an existing diplomatically-created regional split that we can live with.
Like ALAC, ICANN itself needs to focus on its own resources on policy; volunteers are already spread too thin. Expending such scarce resources on political issues -- in which ICANN has even less experience or credibility than usual -- is an unnecessary diversion and needless vision creep.
- Evan
The question is: Can we be part of two regions at the same time? So far the answers has been no. Eduardo Diaz ISOC-Puerto Rico -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:39 PM To: NA Discuss; Evan Leibovitch Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions Let's consider ICANN's current North American Region: American Samoa -- in Asia/Pacific Guam -- in Asia/Pacific Northern Mariana Islands -- in Asia/Pacific United States Minor Outlying Islands -- in Asia/Pacific United States Canada Puerto Rico -- in Caribbean region Virgin Islands, U.S. -- in Caribbean region 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. Ultimately I think that the local internet community should be the ones self-selecting in which ICANN region they wish to reside. The difficulty, of course, arrives when contemplating the creation of new regions. --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 11:59 AM I have long thought that the ICANN methods for chopping up the world, both in process and result, have been drug-induced. Even the act of having the Caribbean put in LAC rather than NA seems strange. Under its regs, Puerto Rico and Guam are in NA but Jamaica is in LAC.
Many global bodies, from the UN to FIFA, have dealt with the touchy issues of regional groupings. ICANN should not go anywhere near re-inventing this wheel, but rather use other well-accepted norms created elsewhere.
Danny Younger wrote:
Concern over the proper formulation of the ICANN Geographic Regions has long been a significant part of At-Large structure-building considerations with the earliest recommendations dating back to the 2001 proposal of the At-Large Study Committee to create a Central/West/South Asia Region (CWSA) comprising India (.in), Pakistan (.pk), Afghanistan (.af), Kazakhstan (.kz), Uzbekistan (.uz), Kyrgyzstan (.kg), Turkmenistan (.tm), Tajikistan (.tj), Sri Lanka (.lk), Maldives (.mv), Iraq (.iq), Iran (.ir), Israel (.il), Syria (.sy), Jordan (.jo), Lebanon (.lb), Palestine Territories (.ps), Kuwait (.kw), UAE (.ae), Yemen (.ye), Oman (.om), Bahrain (.bh), Qatar (.qa), Saudi Arabia (.sa).
Of course, in such a structure Israel -- a significant global player in hi-tech in general and one of the more least-censored societies in that region -- would be aggressively silenced. (In most international groupings it's usually included in Europe.)
My point here is not the resolution of in what region to put Israel, so much as to demonstrate this problem as an example of the kind of political wrangling in which ICANN has absolutely no business engaging.
ICANN has enough on its plate without having to deal with the significant politics behind these issues, and is well advised to use existing standards created elsewhere rather than create its own. The inclusion of Israel in the Mideast region by the 2001 study committee, only lays bare that group's ignorance of the political nuances at play. This is not an indictment of the group so much as an illustration of ICANN's (fully understandable) unsuitability to create such boundaries on its own.
It's bad enough that ICANN touches into politics in regards to ccTLDs (ie, the intensive lobbying regarding ".eh"). We should be involved in such politics as little as is absolutely possible. It should be up to other bodies, not ICANN, to determine whether (for instance) Abkhazia requires its own TLD. Same goes for defining regional divisions; we're not the only ones needing to deal with the shifts in international influence.
The recent recommendations of the Westlake Consulting Team charged with the current ALAC review follow in this spirit by recognizing that ICANN’s geographic regional structure is not well aligned with global population distribution and is increasingly unrepresentative of world-wide Internet usage, leading Westlake to recommend increasing the number of NomCom appointees to the ALAC by two members, both of whom would be from Asia.
The analysis of this that we presented at Paris found this approach horribly flawed, not in the least by its exclusive use of unaccountable appointees -- with no mandate for community accountability -- to address the issue of regional imbalance. If countries are under-represented then fix the regions. Adding two NomComms without any other regional change comes across as the weakest possible answer to this question. If AP needs to be split, then split it.
(It's my personal hope that as At-Large matures that an effective ALAC can eventually be 100% representative. I fully accept that right now such level of maturity does not yet exist. But adding NomComms to ALAC without any corresponding ALS elected/accountable reps seems a step backwards.)
As any change in the total number or composition of ICANN geographic Regions will impact ICANN's At-Large Structures, we formally request that an at-large representative from each current ICANN Geographic Region be included in the Board-appointed community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN's present Geographic Regions and related issues. I believe we ought to take a position that ICANN has no business re-inventing this wheel, and should find an existing diplomatically-created regional split that we can live with.
Like ALAC, ICANN itself needs to focus on its own resources on policy; volunteers are already spread too thin. Expending such scarce resources on political issues -- in which ICANN has even less experience or credibility than usual -- is an unnecessary diversion and needless vision creep.
- 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 ------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.13/1641 - Release Date: 8/29/2008 7:07 AM
Eduardo, Would you see a value in the creation of an ICANN Caribbean Geographic Region? --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> wrote:
From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "'NA Discuss'" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "'Evan Leibovitch'" <evan@telly.org> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 12:49 PM The question is: Can we be part of two regions at the same time? So far the answers has been no.
Eduardo Diaz ISOC-Puerto Rico
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:39 PM To: NA Discuss; Evan Leibovitch Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions
Let's consider ICANN's current North American Region:
American Samoa -- in Asia/Pacific Guam -- in Asia/Pacific Northern Mariana Islands -- in Asia/Pacific United States Minor Outlying Islands -- in Asia/Pacific United States Canada Puerto Rico -- in Caribbean region Virgin Islands, U.S. -- in Caribbean region
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. Ultimately I think that the local internet community should be the ones self-selecting in which ICANN region they wish to reside.
The difficulty, of course, arrives when contemplating the creation of new regions.
--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 11:59 AM I have long thought that the ICANN methods for chopping up the world, both in process and result, have been drug-induced. Even the act of having the Caribbean put in LAC rather than NA seems strange. Under its regs, Puerto Rico and Guam are in NA but Jamaica is in LAC.
Many global bodies, from the UN to FIFA, have dealt with the touchy issues of regional groupings. ICANN should not go anywhere near re-inventing this wheel, but rather use other well-accepted norms created elsewhere.
Danny Younger wrote:
Concern over the proper formulation of the ICANN Geographic Regions has long been a significant part of At-Large structure-building considerations with the earliest recommendations dating back to the 2001 proposal of the At-Large Study Committee to create a Central/West/South Asia Region (CWSA) comprising India (.in), Pakistan (.pk), Afghanistan (.af), Kazakhstan (.kz), Uzbekistan (.uz), Kyrgyzstan (.kg), Turkmenistan (.tm), Tajikistan (.tj), Sri Lanka (.lk), Maldives (.mv), Iraq (.iq), Iran (.ir), Israel (.il), Syria (.sy), Jordan (.jo), Lebanon (.lb), Palestine Territories (.ps), Kuwait (.kw), UAE (.ae), Yemen (.ye), Oman (.om), Bahrain (.bh), Qatar (.qa), Saudi Arabia (.sa).
Of course, in such a structure Israel -- a significant global player in hi-tech in general and one of the more least-censored societies in that region -- would be aggressively silenced. (In most international groupings it's usually included in Europe.)
My point here is not the resolution of in what region to put Israel, so much as to demonstrate this problem as an example of the kind of political wrangling in which ICANN has absolutely no business engaging.
ICANN has enough on its plate without having to deal with the significant politics behind these issues, and is well advised to use existing standards created elsewhere rather than create its own. The inclusion of Israel in the Mideast region by the 2001 study committee, only lays bare that group's ignorance of the political nuances at play. This is not an indictment of the group so much as an illustration of ICANN's (fully understandable) unsuitability to create such boundaries on its own.
It's bad enough that ICANN touches into politics in regards to ccTLDs (ie, the intensive lobbying regarding ".eh"). We should be involved in such politics as little as is absolutely possible. It should be up to other bodies, not ICANN, to determine whether (for instance) Abkhazia requires its own TLD. Same goes for defining regional divisions; we're not the only ones needing to deal with the shifts in international influence.
The recent recommendations of the Westlake Consulting Team charged with the current ALAC review follow in this spirit by recognizing that ICANN’s geographic regional structure is not well aligned with global population distribution and is increasingly unrepresentative of world-wide Internet usage, leading Westlake to recommend increasing the number of NomCom appointees to the ALAC by two members, both of whom would be from Asia.
The analysis of this that we presented at Paris found this approach horribly flawed, not in the least by its exclusive use of unaccountable appointees -- with no mandate for community accountability -- to address the issue of regional imbalance. If countries are under-represented then fix the regions. Adding two NomComms without any other regional change comes across as the weakest possible answer to this question. If AP needs to be split, then split it.
(It's my personal hope that as At-Large matures that an effective ALAC can eventually be 100% representative. I fully accept that right now such level of maturity does not yet exist. But adding NomComms to ALAC without any corresponding ALS elected/accountable reps seems a step backwards.)
As any change in the total number or composition of ICANN geographic Regions will impact ICANN's At-Large Structures, we formally request that an at-large representative from each current ICANN Geographic Region be included in the Board-appointed community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN's present Geographic Regions and related issues. I believe we ought to take a position that ICANN has no business re-inventing this wheel, and should find an existing diplomatically-created regional split that we can live with.
Like ALAC, ICANN itself needs to focus on its own resources on policy; volunteers are already spread too thin. Expending such scarce resources on political issues -- in which ICANN has even less experience or credibility than usual -- is an unnecessary diversion and needless vision creep.
- 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 ------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.13/1641 - Release Date: 8/29/2008 7:07 AM
Danny: Sorry for the late answer...but at this moment I do not see the value, except that we should be allowed to participate in more than one RALO, i.e. LACRALO. Eduardo Diaz -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:54 PM To: 'NA Discuss'; 'Evan Leibovitch'; ediaz@prtc.net Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions Eduardo, Would you see a value in the creation of an ICANN Caribbean Geographic Region? --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> wrote:
From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "'NA Discuss'" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "'Evan Leibovitch'" <evan@telly.org> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 12:49 PM The question is: Can we be part of two regions at the same time? So far the answers has been no.
Eduardo Diaz ISOC-Puerto Rico
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:39 PM To: NA Discuss; Evan Leibovitch Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions
Let's consider ICANN's current North American Region:
American Samoa -- in Asia/Pacific Guam -- in Asia/Pacific Northern Mariana Islands -- in Asia/Pacific United States Minor Outlying Islands -- in Asia/Pacific United States Canada Puerto Rico -- in Caribbean region Virgin Islands, U.S. -- in Caribbean region
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. Ultimately I think that the local internet community should be the ones self-selecting in which ICANN region they wish to reside.
The difficulty, of course, arrives when contemplating the creation of new regions.
--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 11:59 AM I have long thought that the ICANN methods for chopping up the world, both in process and result, have been drug-induced. Even the act of having the Caribbean put in LAC rather than NA seems strange. Under its regs, Puerto Rico and Guam are in NA but Jamaica is in LAC.
Many global bodies, from the UN to FIFA, have dealt with the touchy issues of regional groupings. ICANN should not go anywhere near re-inventing this wheel, but rather use other well-accepted norms created elsewhere.
Danny Younger wrote:
Concern over the proper formulation of the ICANN Geographic Regions has long been a significant part of At-Large structure-building considerations with the earliest recommendations dating back to the 2001 proposal of the At-Large Study Committee to create a Central/West/South Asia Region (CWSA) comprising India (.in), Pakistan (.pk), Afghanistan (.af), Kazakhstan (.kz), Uzbekistan (.uz), Kyrgyzstan (.kg), Turkmenistan (.tm), Tajikistan (.tj), Sri Lanka (.lk), Maldives (.mv), Iraq (.iq), Iran (.ir), Israel (.il), Syria (.sy), Jordan (.jo), Lebanon (.lb), Palestine Territories (.ps), Kuwait (.kw), UAE (.ae), Yemen (.ye), Oman (.om), Bahrain (.bh), Qatar (.qa), Saudi Arabia (.sa).
Of course, in such a structure Israel -- a significant global player in hi-tech in general and one of the more least-censored societies in that region -- would be aggressively silenced. (In most international groupings it's usually included in Europe.)
My point here is not the resolution of in what region to put Israel, so much as to demonstrate this problem as an example of the kind of political wrangling in which ICANN has absolutely no business engaging.
ICANN has enough on its plate without having to deal with the significant politics behind these issues, and is well advised to use existing standards created elsewhere rather than create its own. The inclusion of Israel in the Mideast region by the 2001 study committee, only lays bare that group's ignorance of the political nuances at play. This is not an indictment of the group so much as an illustration of ICANN's (fully understandable) unsuitability to create such boundaries on its own.
It's bad enough that ICANN touches into politics in regards to ccTLDs (ie, the intensive lobbying regarding ".eh"). We should be involved in such politics as little as is absolutely possible. It should be up to other bodies, not ICANN, to determine whether (for instance) Abkhazia requires its own TLD. Same goes for defining regional divisions; we're not the only ones needing to deal with the shifts in international influence.
The recent recommendations of the Westlake Consulting Team charged with the current ALAC review follow in this spirit by recognizing that ICANN’s geographic regional structure is not well aligned with global population distribution and is increasingly unrepresentative of world-wide Internet usage, leading Westlake to recommend increasing the number of NomCom appointees to the ALAC by two members, both of whom would be from Asia.
The analysis of this that we presented at Paris found this approach horribly flawed, not in the least by its exclusive use of unaccountable appointees -- with no mandate for community accountability -- to address the issue of regional imbalance. If countries are under-represented then fix the regions. Adding two NomComms without any other regional change comes across as the weakest possible answer to this question. If AP needs to be split, then split it.
(It's my personal hope that as At-Large matures that an effective ALAC can eventually be 100% representative. I fully accept that right now such level of maturity does not yet exist. But adding NomComms to ALAC without any corresponding ALS elected/accountable reps seems a step backwards.)
As any change in the total number or composition of ICANN geographic Regions will impact ICANN's At-Large Structures, we formally request that an at-large representative from each current ICANN Geographic Region be included in the Board-appointed community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN's present Geographic Regions and related issues. I believe we ought to take a position that ICANN has no business re-inventing this wheel, and should find an existing diplomatically-created regional split that we can live with.
Like ALAC, ICANN itself needs to focus on its own resources on policy; volunteers are already spread too thin. Expending such scarce resources on political issues -- in which ICANN has even less experience or credibility than usual -- is an unnecessary diversion and needless vision creep.
- 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 ------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.13/1641 - Release Date: 8/29/2008 7:07 AM
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.15/1649 - Release Date: 9/3/2008 7:15 AM
Eduardo Diaz wrote:
Sorry for the late answer...but at this moment I do not see the value, except that we should be allowed to participate in more than one RALO, i.e. LACRALO.
Frankly I don't understand why there should be any objection to this. An ALS may have voting privileges in only one RALO, but there is no reason that they should not be allowed to participate in more than one RALO's discussions as a non-voting participant. Doing this would not seem to require any changes to MOUs or operating procedures unless they're very restrictive. If any existing member of LACRALO wanted to participate in a NARALO discussion I wouldn't hesitate to welcome them. (Allowing an ALS to arbitrarily select which region they preferred should also be allowed, but would require many changes to the legal documents...) - Evan
FYI, at the present time there is no obstacle to anyone (either ALS or individual) participating in any other RALO, unless the RALO objects for some reason - excepting with regard to voting. In the case of ISOC PR, I would be willing to bet that your participation would be more than welcome in LACRALO for example. On 04/09/2008 23:43, "Eduardo Diaz" <ediaz@prtc.net> wrote: Danny: Sorry for the late answer...but at this moment I do not see the value, except that we should be allowed to participate in more than one RALO, i.e. LACRALO. Eduardo Diaz -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:54 PM To: 'NA Discuss'; 'Evan Leibovitch'; ediaz@prtc.net Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions Eduardo, Would you see a value in the creation of an ICANN Caribbean Geographic Region? --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> wrote:
From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz@prtc.net> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "'NA Discuss'" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "'Evan Leibovitch'" <evan@telly.org> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 12:49 PM The question is: Can we be part of two regions at the same time? So far the answers has been no.
Eduardo Diaz ISOC-Puerto Rico
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:39 PM To: NA Discuss; Evan Leibovitch Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions
Let's consider ICANN's current North American Region:
American Samoa -- in Asia/Pacific Guam -- in Asia/Pacific Northern Mariana Islands -- in Asia/Pacific United States Minor Outlying Islands -- in Asia/Pacific United States Canada Puerto Rico -- in Caribbean region Virgin Islands, U.S. -- in Caribbean region
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. Ultimately I think that the local internet community should be the ones self-selecting in which ICANN region they wish to reside.
The difficulty, of course, arrives when contemplating the creation of new regions.
--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 11:59 AM I have long thought that the ICANN methods for chopping up the world, both in process and result, have been drug-induced. Even the act of having the Caribbean put in LAC rather than NA seems strange. Under its regs, Puerto Rico and Guam are in NA but Jamaica is in LAC.
Many global bodies, from the UN to FIFA, have dealt with the touchy issues of regional groupings. ICANN should not go anywhere near re-inventing this wheel, but rather use other well-accepted norms created elsewhere.
Danny Younger wrote:
Concern over the proper formulation of the ICANN Geographic Regions has long been a significant part of At-Large structure-building considerations with the earliest recommendations dating back to the 2001 proposal of the At-Large Study Committee to create a Central/West/South Asia Region (CWSA) comprising India (.in), Pakistan (.pk), Afghanistan (.af), Kazakhstan (.kz), Uzbekistan (.uz), Kyrgyzstan (.kg), Turkmenistan (.tm), Tajikistan (.tj), Sri Lanka (.lk), Maldives (.mv), Iraq (.iq), Iran (.ir), Israel (.il), Syria (.sy), Jordan (.jo), Lebanon (.lb), Palestine Territories (.ps), Kuwait (.kw), UAE (.ae), Yemen (.ye), Oman (.om), Bahrain (.bh), Qatar (.qa), Saudi Arabia (.sa).
Of course, in such a structure Israel -- a significant global player in hi-tech in general and one of the more least-censored societies in that region -- would be aggressively silenced. (In most international groupings it's usually included in Europe.)
My point here is not the resolution of in what region to put Israel, so much as to demonstrate this problem as an example of the kind of political wrangling in which ICANN has absolutely no business engaging.
ICANN has enough on its plate without having to deal with the significant politics behind these issues, and is well advised to use existing standards created elsewhere rather than create its own. The inclusion of Israel in the Mideast region by the 2001 study committee, only lays bare that group's ignorance of the political nuances at play. This is not an indictment of the group so much as an illustration of ICANN's (fully understandable) unsuitability to create such boundaries on its own.
It's bad enough that ICANN touches into politics in regards to ccTLDs (ie, the intensive lobbying regarding ".eh"). We should be involved in such politics as little as is absolutely possible. It should be up to other bodies, not ICANN, to determine whether (for instance) Abkhazia requires its own TLD. Same goes for defining regional divisions; we're not the only ones needing to deal with the shifts in international influence.
The recent recommendations of the Westlake Consulting Team charged with the current ALAC review follow in this spirit by recognizing that ICANN's geographic regional structure is not well aligned with global population distribution and is increasingly unrepresentative of world-wide Internet usage, leading Westlake to recommend increasing the number of NomCom appointees to the ALAC by two members, both of whom would be from Asia.
The analysis of this that we presented at Paris found this approach horribly flawed, not in the least by its exclusive use of unaccountable appointees -- with no mandate for community accountability -- to address the issue of regional imbalance. If countries are under-represented then fix the regions. Adding two NomComms without any other regional change comes across as the weakest possible answer to this question. If AP needs to be split, then split it.
(It's my personal hope that as At-Large matures that an effective ALAC can eventually be 100% representative. I fully accept that right now such level of maturity does not yet exist. But adding NomComms to ALAC without any corresponding ALS elected/accountable reps seems a step backwards.)
As any change in the total number or composition of ICANN geographic Regions will impact ICANN's At-Large Structures, we formally request that an at-large representative from each current ICANN Geographic Region be included in the Board-appointed community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN's present Geographic Regions and related issues. I believe we ought to take a position that ICANN has no business re-inventing this wheel, and should find an existing diplomatically-created regional split that we can live with.
Like ALAC, ICANN itself needs to focus on its own resources on policy; volunteers are already spread too thin. Expending such scarce resources on political issues -- in which ICANN has even less experience or credibility than usual -- is an unnecessary diversion and needless vision creep.
- 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 ------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.13/1641 - Release Date: 8/29/2008 7:07 AM
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.15/1649 - Release Date: 9/3/2008 7:15 AM ------ 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 ------ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
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
Before we digress into more off-the-cuff remarks, let me suggest that all of us first review the current ccNSO WG report: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/second-report-regions-wg-20jun07.pdf
Danny Younger wrote:
Before we digress into more off-the-cuff remarks, let me suggest that all of us first review the current ccNSO WG report:
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/second-report-regions-wg-20jun07.pdf
... in which I read little but confusion, a shopping list unanswered questions, a recognition that the ICANN regional split deviates from UN standards for political reasons, and little of value to recommend. In other words, they were in over their heads and they seemed to know it. No surprise. Thankfully, they also seemed to recognize that all the global gerrymandering that ICANN could devise would matter little if the various regions' members did not participate. - Evan
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 ------
Hi Dharma,
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? I have no objection at all to liberalizing the way through which ALSs identify and group themselves. Below I describe some practises that could be done immediately to help implement this.
However ... my main point is that all of this is a diversion from the prime goal here, which is Internet policy. Even this email thread constitutes a diversion from possible research on the RAA or other relevant issues. When I came into ALAC there was a major complaint that all its discussions are about structure and so little about substance (policy output). Danny's earlier comments about the ALAC's diminishing relevance due to its silence on important issues was extremely well stated, and far more worrisome to me than re-drawing regional boundaries. With that in mind, and with an eye to NARALO/ALAC priorities and focus, issues of "who goes where" just strike me as poor uses of our limited resources at this time. Look how few people on ALAC actually carry the weight of the group. Given a choice between having them work on Internet policy or structure, I choose policy. Both would be nice, but the reality is that we simply don't have the luxury of ALAC working on all cylinders. Now... If there is a *direct* cause/effect link between fixing regional boundaries and making the current ALAC more effective at churning policy, I want to hear it and would then support 100%. But I just don't see that right now. Sorting out translation and multi-lingual participation seems much more important, at least in the short term, as a way to increase participation and effectiveness. At an informal level -- right now, I personally would have no objection to reps of other regions' ALSs coming to our meetings and subscribing to our email list ... and I would hope the same courtesy could be extended to ALSs in our region who would like to get involved elsewhere. But that's a low-level procedural step -- we could even do it through a modification of our MOU, if we really needed to formalize it -- and does not require Board-level committee work.
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. I agree and would take it a step beyond that. If there is an argument of under-representation it should probably be voiced by those who feel they are under-represented. In other words, NARALO might not be the best region to bring this to ALAC, especially given that we have other more-important things on our plate.
I think we need to pool our scarce resources effectively -- to 'pick our battles', so to speak -- and that getting ALAC involved in the regional distribution issue simply depletes its ability to do real Internet policy work which is so badly lacking. - Evan
I think there needs to be a designation for virtual organizations. More and more networks and groups which are internet stakeholders do not have a geographic presence and their memberships cross state boundaries. Sylvia www.peoplewho.org
participants (6)
-
Danny Younger -
Dharma Dailey -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Sylvia Caras