Re: [NA-Discuss] Geographic Regions Statement
Eric, Enough. Any point you've been trying to make in your long description has been obliterated by a level of personal insult this list hasn't seen in a long time - if ever. You owe Darlene an apology. You also have yet to make any connection whatsoever between your stories of disenfranchisement and how ICANN would benefit from having just one region for the americas rather than two. But if you intend to answer me like you did Darlene, don't bother. - Evan (sent from my Android phone) On 2011-01-27 8:46 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote: 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
Evan, Anyone can find insult if that is what they seek. I sought to explain that there are aspects of ICANN's North America region that are problematic. An indigenous government is lost to Europe. The largest population of least assimilated Indians in the US is overlooked. The discomfort is mutual, and the preference I first expressed was for Greenland and Mexico to be included in "North America". Failing that, as Olga pointed out at the Geographic Regions meeting in Cartagena, Indians do at least as well in South America as in North America, and a single region harms Indians less than partition. Disagreement with you is a really high stakes thing. What is your real issue with whether GL is in one region or another? Whether MX is in one region or another? Eric
If there were any reason to believe that Mexico wanted to move from LAC to NA, or that Greenland wanted to move from EU to NA, I think we would all be happy to talk to them. I've never heard anyone suggest that they do. Has anyone else? 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
Hi, Not wanting to get into 1,2 or more Americas issue. But do want to bring up the issue of indigenous populations whatever the region. I have been working with indigenous population in Europe, the Sámi, for years. They are not represented in Euralo any more than the populations that Eric is referring to are represented in Naralo, though there may be individual members of those populations participating Just as the Island populations are looking for a cross-regional way to get representation, is there any value, or interest, in looking at ways to obtain cross-regional representation for Indigenous populations. If there is interest in this within the RALO, would this be worth adding to the statement? Something like: Naralo also supports investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries. a.
On 28 January 2011 00:08, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
But I do want to bring up the issue of indigenous populations whatever the region. I have been working with indigenous population in Europe, the Sámi, for years. They are not represented in Euralo any more than the populations that Eric is referring to are represented in Naralo, though there may be individual members of those populations participating
Understood and agreed. As but one small example of the ICANN-relevance of this: during the At-Large Summit, Karaitiana Taiuru -- a Māori ALS representative -- helped ensure our working group's understanding, understanding, and inclusion of traditional wisdom as an alternative approach to western concepts of intellectual property. Just as the Island populations are looking for a cross-regional way to get
representation, is there any value, or interest, in looking at ways to obtain cross-regional representation for Indigenous populations. If there is interest in this within the RALO, would this be worth adding to the statement? Something like:
Naralo also supports investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries.
I am certainly acceptable to adding this to our regional statement. Are there any objections to this? - Evan PS: Many thanks are due to Avri for turning down the heat level on this debate.
I have no problem whatsoever in supporting Avri's suggestion. Gareth On 2011-01-27, at 10:58 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 28 January 2011 00:08, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
But I do want to bring up the issue of indigenous populations whatever the region. I have been working with indigenous population in Europe, the Sámi, for years. They are not represented in Euralo any more than the populations that Eric is referring to are represented in Naralo, though there may be individual members of those populations participating
Understood and agreed. As but one small example of the ICANN-relevance of this: during the At-Large Summit, Karaitiana Taiuru -- a Māori ALS representative -- helped ensure our working group's understanding, understanding, and inclusion of traditional wisdom as an alternative approach to western concepts of intellectual property.
Just as the Island populations are looking for a cross-regional way to get
representation, is there any value, or interest, in looking at ways to obtain cross-regional representation for Indigenous populations. If there is interest in this within the RALO, would this be worth adding to the statement? Something like:
Naralo also supports investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries.
I am certainly acceptable to adding this to our regional statement. Are there any objections to this?
- Evan
PS: Many thanks are due to Avri for turning down the heat level on this debate. ------ 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 ------
That language is very useful - I would agree to it! 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: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:58 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Geographic Regions Statement On 28 January 2011 00:08, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
But I do want to bring up the issue of indigenous populations whatever the region. I have been working with indigenous population in Europe, the Sámi, for years. They are not represented in Euralo any more than the populations that Eric is referring to are represented in Naralo, though there may be individual members of those populations participating
Understood and agreed. As but one small example of the ICANN-relevance of this: during the At-Large Summit, Karaitiana Taiuru -- a Māori ALS representative -- helped ensure our working group's understanding, understanding, and inclusion of traditional wisdom as an alternative approach to western concepts of intellectual property. Just as the Island populations are looking for a cross-regional way to get
representation, is there any value, or interest, in looking at ways to obtain cross-regional representation for Indigenous populations. If there is interest in this within the RALO, would this be worth adding to the statement? Something like:
Naralo also supports investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries.
I am certainly acceptable to adding this to our regional statement. Are there any objections to this? - Evan PS: Many thanks are due to Avri for turning down the heat level on this debate. ------ 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 ------
Naralo also supports investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries.
I will support adding this to NARALO. -ed On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 28 January 2011 00:08, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
But I do want to bring up the issue of indigenous populations whatever
the
region. I have been working with indigenous population in Europe, the Sámi, for years. They are not represented in Euralo any more than the populations that Eric is referring to are represented in Naralo, though there may be individual members of those populations participating
Understood and agreed. As but one small example of the ICANN-relevance of this: during the At-Large Summit, Karaitiana Taiuru -- a Māori ALS representative -- helped ensure our working group's understanding, understanding, and inclusion of traditional wisdom as an alternative approach to western concepts of intellectual property.
Just as the Island populations are looking for a cross-regional way to get
representation, is there any value, or interest, in looking at ways to obtain cross-regional representation for Indigenous populations. If there is interest in this within the RALO, would this be worth adding to the statement? Something like:
Naralo also supports investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries.
I am certainly acceptable to adding this to our regional statement. Are there any objections to this?
- Evan
PS: Many thanks are due to Avri for turning down the heat level on this debate. ------ 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 ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
Yes, agreed. Marc. On Jan 28, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
Naralo also supports investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries.
I will support adding this to NARALO.
-ed
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 28 January 2011 00:08, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
But I do want to bring up the issue of indigenous populations whatever
the
region. I have been working with indigenous population in Europe, the Sámi, for years. They are not represented in Euralo any more than the populations that Eric is referring to are represented in Naralo, though there may be individual members of those populations participating
Understood and agreed. As but one small example of the ICANN-relevance of this: during the At-Large Summit, Karaitiana Taiuru -- a Māori ALS representative -- helped ensure our working group's understanding, understanding, and inclusion of traditional wisdom as an alternative approach to western concepts of intellectual property.
Just as the Island populations are looking for a cross-regional way to get
representation, is there any value, or interest, in looking at ways to obtain cross-regional representation for Indigenous populations. If there is interest in this within the RALO, would this be worth adding to the statement? Something like:
Naralo also supports investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries.
I am certainly acceptable to adding this to our regional statement. Are there any objections to this?
- Evan
PS: Many thanks are due to Avri for turning down the heat level on this debate. ------ 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 ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. ------ 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 ------
OK. In light of the deadlines (the end of the public comment period is Sunday), I have drafted the NARALO statement as follows: *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 also support investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries. However, we would strongly oppose any regional model (such as the ITU) that would amalgamate all of the Western Hemisphere into a single "Americas" region. * This seems to meet with the acceptance of everyone except one. - Evan
Ok with us. -ed On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
OK. In light of the deadlines (the end of the public comment period is Sunday), I have drafted the NARALO statement as follows:
*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 also support investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries. However, we would strongly oppose any regional model (such as the ITU) that would amalgamate all of the Western Hemisphere into a single "Americas" region. *
This seems to meet with the acceptance of everyone except one.
- Evan
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
Regarding the Geographic Regions Statement, three points: 1. Knowing shamefully little about indigenous peoples, I draw your attention to those possibly trans-national/regional peoples that inhabit the most northern part of our planet. How can the DNS serve their needs? 2. In primary school (in the 1950s) I was taught there were 3 continents in this part of the world, North, South, and Central America. I suspect this might have been to separate us from the somewhat less northern Europeans to the south of Texas. 3. Living in a Spanish speaking section of North America, and able now to drive an automobile to South America, and with trade in goods and culture increasingly shared between north and south, I think it would be good to begin thinking of us a one region. Tom Lowenhaupt Jackson Heights, New York On 1/28/2011 12:08 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Not wanting to get into 1,2 or more Americas issue.
But do want to bring up the issue of indigenous populations whatever the region. I have been working with indigenous population in Europe, the Sámi, for years. They are not represented in Euralo any more than the populations that Eric is referring to are represented in Naralo, though there may be individual members of those populations participating
Just as the Island populations are looking for a cross-regional way to get representation, is there any value, or interest, in looking at ways to obtain cross-regional representation for Indigenous populations. If there is interest in this within the RALO, would this be worth adding to the statement? Something like:
Naralo also supports investigating way to increase the participation of Indigenous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across regional boundaries.
a.
------ 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 1/28/11 5:02 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
Regarding the Geographic Regions Statement, three points:
1. Knowing shamefully little about indigenous peoples, I draw your attention to those possibly trans-national/regional peoples that inhabit the most northern part of our planet. How can the DNS serve their needs?
There is the Inuit Cicumpolar Congress, which includes Siberian Yupick. A friend of my attended the most recent ICC games (but I didn't get a tee-shirt). In the north connectivity is difficult as geo-stationary satellites are very low on the southern horizon. Layer 1 and 2 (physical and link) onnectivity is more of a concern than layer 3 (routing) and layer 4 (DNS) services. The Northern European Sami are not ICC participants as far as I know. In addition to Avri another resource is the director of the Swedish Museum of Natural History, a non-Sami interested in Sami issues. But you've asked the right question -- is there a there there (to borrow from Gertrude Stein's comment about Oakland California) in the context of regional constructions of similarity of material condition? I think so, hence the mention I initially made for the Greenland Home Rule government. Obviously, there are firmly held opinions to the contrary as well. Eric
On 28 January 2011 14:58, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
Layer 1 and 2 (physical and link) onnectivity is more of a concern than layer 3 (routing) and layer 4 (DNS) services.
Issues about the lower levels are beyond our scope, and ICANN already has enough problems with mission creep. The whole point of this discussion is to address our position on what ICANN -- and sepcifically here wrt geographic regional alignment -- can do to better the participation of participation of indiginous end-users (amongst others) in policy making at the DNS layer. I like Avri's wording and have included it in the NARALO statement -- with the apparent approval of all who have commented on it so far. As for which region should include Mexico, Central America, Greenland, the Caribbean, etc, I'm neutral because any stance I would take would IMO be needless meddling. I would leave those determinations to the local residents, while being prepared with a warm and unconditional welcome should they wish to be a part of our region. - Evan
I have not heard anything to that effect with regards to Mexico. However, I have been approached by some people in LacRalo asking us if we would like to become a member of their Ralo. My opinion on this is that eventhough Puerto Rico shares the Spanish language and have a very close cultural background with most of the countries in LacRalo it is also true that, from an Internet perspective, Puerto Rico is more in tune with issues concerning the North American region. This is mostly the result of being a colony of US for more than a 100 years. Is it posible for a country to be a member of two or more Ralos at the same time? -ed On Jan 27, 2011, at 11:29 PM, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
If there were any reason to believe that Mexico wanted to move from LAC to NA, or that Greenland wanted to move from EU to NA, I think we would all be happy to talk to them.
I've never heard anyone suggest that they do. Has anyone else?
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 ------ 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 ------
Eduardo, One of the unintended consequences of the construction of the "North American Region" is quite recent. Several ICANN ByLaws entities agreed to form a Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA-WG). The call for volunteers was circulated on several lists, though not this one (North American regional At Large participation may have been overlooked, or not sought). One of the DSSA-WG chartering ByLaws entities is the ccNSO. A significant portion of the subject matter (DNS Security and Stability Analysis) experts are residents of North America. A significant portion of the subject matter (DNS Security and Stability Analysis) experts are not employed by Verisign, Afilias, or NeuStar, or employed by CIRA or NeuStar. Everyone is entitled to their unsupported speculative opinion, my unsupported speculative opinion is that these three of these four corporate entities are unlikely to recommend independent subject matter experts to this working group. The existence of PR in the "North American Region" allows that ccNSO member to recommend one or more North American resident subject matter experts to the DSSA-WG. Were MX currently allocated to the same region, it too could recommend one or more North American resident subject matter experts to the DSSA-WG. The point of this note, which no one is obliged to read, is that the restriction of "North America" to two property managers, one with an issue relative to the majority Fracophone region of the continent, the other a for-profit corporation pursuing shareholder profit maximization goals, restricts, in the DSSA-WG case, basic access to DNS data of profound import to operational stability and policy making. A goal of accountability and transparency is difficult to achieve by first allocating control of access to information to as few as two operators, one very active in the pursuit of its own profits as a gTLD registry operator. "Diversity" should not shield any regime, or any for-profit operator, from scrutiny. Personally I appreciate greatly the independence of both the PR operator and the MX operator, and I'm honored to call their principles friends. Eric
Good assessment. It goes for everyone too. -ed On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro>wrote:
Is it posible for a country to be a member of two or more Ralos at the same time?
"Vote in one; participate in all" would be my suggestion.
Bret
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
On 28 January 2011 11:44, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
Is it posible for a country to be a member of two or more Ralos at the same time?
"Vote in one; participate in all" would be my suggestion.
At least while I was chair of NARALO, that was our unofficial policy. Anyone from any region could participate in our issues, but only the NA-associated ALSs and individuals would be considered in any votes or consensus decisions. And, indeed, we have had many observers and participants from other regions over the years. I can't speak for other regions, but I know that I personally have attended phone-call conferences in at least three other regions and was welcomed in the discussions at all times. So while "Vote in one; participate in all" may not be explicitly stated policy, it is indeed how things work. (BTW I would *not* add the above to the NARALO statement because it deals with inter-RALO relationships rather than geographical alignment.) - Evan
participants (11)
-
Avri Doria -
Bret Fausett -
Eduardo Diaz -
Eduardo Diaz, PE
-
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
Gareth Shearman -
John R. Levine -
Marc Rotenberg -
Thomas Lowenhaupt -
Thompson, Darlene