Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Fellowship and US Terrritories
Glenn raised an interesting concern, but one that according to Janice is already solved. These islands ARE eligible for the Fellowship. Evan pointed out that according to ICANN regions, there are in the wrong place. The Geographic Regions Review Working Group issued a report on this in June 2013 and recommended that such territories could move region if they wished (but subject to objection from the "mother country"). Report can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13.... I do not know whether the Board ever acted on it. The only question is whether Chris chooses to visit these islands instead of Save. It's a hard job, but someone needs to do it! ;-) Alan At 20/03/2015 05:52 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Janice.
One difficulty of the spreadsheet is that ICANN's geographic slicing and dicing of the world is not the same as the UN's. According to ICANN's geographical regions, territories are grouped under the region of each territory's "mother country". (see http://meetings.icann.org/regions)
So while the Virgin Islands are located in the Caribbean, according to ICANN the British Virgin Islands are in the European region and the US Virgin Islands are in North America.
What this means is that within ICANN's regional groupings,
American Samoa Federated State of Micronesia Guam Marianas Marshall Islands Palau
are part of the North American Region and not Oceania or Asia/Pacific. That is, At-Large Structures that are located in these locations are, according to ICANN, under NARALO. This is a regional allocation which is, I believe, unique to ICANN, but needs to be maintained nonetheless.
Thanks!
On 19 March 2015 at 23:47, Janice Douma Lange <janice.lange@icann.org> wrote:
With attachment
From: Janice Douma Lange <[1]janice.lange@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 19 March 2015 20:27 To: Glenn Mcknight <[2]mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> Cc: save vocea <[3]save.vocea@icann.org>, NA Discuss <[4]na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <[5]robert.hoggarth@icann.org> Subject: Re: ICANN Fellowship and US Terrritories
Hi Glenn and all.. Over the past few years it has been my pleasure to work with you and others in At Large on these worthy initiatives towards broader engagement with communities that seem to be not as accessible to ICANN or ICANN accessible to them as other nations. In this particular case, as Save has already pointed out, each of the nations that you have noted are eligible for the Fellowship Program, as we use both the World Economic Bank and the SIDN UN listing and they all fall under that criteria. I have attached the most recent list of eligible countries for the Fellowship program; I check our application list against the World Bank and SIDN list prior to each Fellowship application launch to make sure a country has not been added or taken off the list before the new application goes live. Hope this is what you were looking for, although a trip to any of the islands would be grand :) janice From: Glenn Mcknight <[6]mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 16 March 2015 09:51 To: NA Discuss <[7]na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Janice Douma Lange <[8]janice.lange@icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <[9]robert.hoggarth@icann.org> Subject: ICANN Fellowship and US Terrritories Hi Janice I hope all is well In the past under Garth's leadership we have tried to reach out to the US territories for their involvement with ICANN. ie. NARALO In research we discovered that these US terrioritories live in a limbo situation with regards to their political status. On one hand they are US territory but the citizens do not have the right to vote. My concern is that they according to the UN research exist in a situation that places them as US property but they have income similar to least developed states [10]https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1523 The list from UN Listing of Small Island Developing Nations American Samoa Federated State of Micronesia Guam Marianas Marshall Islands These five locations have unique Internet access issues. Among of which is some of the most expensive Internet service rates. My understanding is that these locations do not qualify for an application to the ICANN Fellowship program due to their US affiliation despite their low per capita income, Is this correct? Can you please provide us with clarification on this issue. What is the process of rectifying this situation. Happy to chat about this. ( not looking for a trip to the islands [cid:330@goomoji.gmail] ) Thanks Glenn Glenn McKnight [11]mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight .
References
1. mailto:janice.lange@icann.org 2. mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com 3. mailto:save.vocea@icann.org 4. mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org 5. mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org 6. mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com 7. mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org 8. mailto:janice.lange@icann.org 9. mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org 10. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1523 11. mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com
------ 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 ------
-- 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 ------
On 20/03/2015 22:41, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Evan pointed out that according to ICANN regions, there are in the wrong place. The Geographic Regions Review Working Group issued a report on this in June 2013 and recommended that such territories could move region if they wished (but subject to objection from the "mother country"). Report can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13.... I do not know whether the Board ever acted on it.
To my knowledge the Board has not yet acted on it. Last time I asked, which was several months ago, I was told a decision was imminent. It was such a long time ago that I can't even remember who told me that... Kind regards, Olivier
At 21/03/2015 01:40 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 20/03/2015 22:41, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Evan pointed out that according to ICANN regions, there are in the wrong place. The Geographic Regions Review Working Group issued a report on this in June 2013 and recommended that such territories could move region if they wished (but subject to objection from the "mother country"). Report can be found at
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/geo-regions-final-report-22jun13....
I do not know whether the Board ever acted on it.
To my knowledge the Board has not yet acted on it. Last time I asked, which was several months ago, I was told a decision was imminent. It was such a long time ago that I can't even remember who told me that... Kind regards,
Olivier
I have since been told that the intent is that it be submitted to the Board prior to BA for action later this year. Alan
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond