Re: [NA-Discuss] Indigenous Peoples Fellowship Program
Gordon, Ever since John Afele and I undertook outreach to Indigenous Populations -- and my focus was the Americas and Oceania -- during the June 2000 Membership Implementation Task Force -- the progenitor of an "At Large", it has been wicked difficult to offer utility in participating in ICANN sufficient to motivate FN/NA/Metis/Indios to engage, and amongst those who do, to remain engaged. A long-winded way of saying that if you know of any FN, Metis, or Allied individuals considering engaging in any part of ICANN, please do pass along my contact information to him/her/them. The criteria used by ICANN for its Fellowship Program is: "Applicants must be citizens of economically eligible countries. We use a combination of the World Bank classification of low, lower-middle, and upper-middle economies, along with two (2) UN groupings of developing and least developed nations: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/sids/44/, http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/25/ which are based on distinctly different criteria which stretch beyond the World Bank's economically deterministic view. " Here is a brief outline of how I currently view how ICANN can, should it decide to, approach the question of extending its existing Fellowship Program to distinct, under-served populations lacking the objective third-party generated identifiers used, e.g., to provide a delegation from the IANA root zome to an applicant for a Memorandum, rather than a Contract, form of operational agreement (the UN Statistical Agency's designation of Palestine as a distinct identifier, leading to the allocation of "PS" in ISO 3166-1), or the criteria published by the UN-OHRLLS*. The current interpretation of the tax authority of the United States is that bonding authority of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes is not capable of issuing tax exempt bonds except for "Government Purposes", unlike the bonding authority of States and their subordinate political jurisdictions -- cities and so forth, which may issue tax exempt bonds for arbitrary purposes, e.g., construction of sports arenas, etc. This IRS enforced relative deficiency (originating from a lone member of the Republican House Caucus elected from a district in Florida and highly critical of Indian Gaming), and the Volume Cap for Tribal Economic Development Bonds**, are object, third-party determinations that "significantly less access to finance capital" exists in "Indian Country" within the country with the highest ranking GDP. I developed all this (a bunch of supporting data and papers on Tribes and their bonding authority and experience) when I thought that the JAS effort might benefit a new gTLD applicant organic to, or at least committed to serving, some Indigenous Peoples, which of course did not occur. I briefly considered the equivalent issue of tax exempt bonds as a means of access to finance capital and the bonding authority of Treaty Bands in Canada. I don't consider my knowledge in this area equivalent to my knowledge of the situation for Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in the United States. What was intended for the new gTLD program can be repurposed to address a long-standing deficiency in the Fellowship Program. If you'd like we can work on this off the na-discuss list. There are Indian Telecoms and Datacoms lists, and some of the content relates to ICANN and network access policy. Again, please pass along my contact info, should you think it useful. Eric * UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, at http://www.unohrlls.org LDC defined at: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/164/ LLDC defined at: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/lldc/31/ SDC defined at: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/sids/43/ ** http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Exempt-Bonds/Published-Volume-Cap-Limit-for-Tribal-Ec...
Eric: Thank you for your note and my apologies for not responding sooner - I've been under the weather with a bad cold for a week and I'm just crawling out from under now. And trying to catch up. My meeting with my contact was VERY brief - and the result was simply that we'll get together at the next meeting to talk further. I will keep your contact information handy, Eric, with my thanks. I also plan, with your permission, to bring along a copy of your e-mail, just in case it proves useful. Gordon On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 10:09 -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
Gordon,
Ever since John Afele and I undertook outreach to Indigenous Populations -- and my focus was the Americas and Oceania -- during the June 2000 Membership Implementation Task Force -- the progenitor of an "At Large", it has been wicked difficult to offer utility in participating in ICANN sufficient to motivate FN/NA/Metis/Indios to engage, and amongst those who do, to remain engaged.
A long-winded way of saying that if you know of any FN, Metis, or Allied individuals considering engaging in any part of ICANN, please do pass along my contact information to him/her/them.
The criteria used by ICANN for its Fellowship Program is:
"Applicants must be citizens of economically eligible countries. We use a combination of the World Bank classification of low, lower-middle, and upper-middle economies, along with two (2) UN groupings of developing and least developed nations: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/sids/44/, http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/25/ which are based on distinctly different criteria which stretch beyond the World Bank's economically deterministic view. "
Here is a brief outline of how I currently view how ICANN can, should it decide to, approach the question of extending its existing Fellowship Program to distinct, under-served populations lacking the objective third-party generated identifiers used, e.g., to provide a delegation from the IANA root zome to an applicant for a Memorandum, rather than a Contract, form of operational agreement (the UN Statistical Agency's designation of Palestine as a distinct identifier, leading to the allocation of "PS" in ISO 3166-1), or the criteria published by the UN-OHRLLS*.
The current interpretation of the tax authority of the United States is that bonding authority of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes is not capable of issuing tax exempt bonds except for "Government Purposes", unlike the bonding authority of States and their subordinate political jurisdictions -- cities and so forth, which may issue tax exempt bonds for arbitrary purposes, e.g., construction of sports arenas, etc.
This IRS enforced relative deficiency (originating from a lone member of the Republican House Caucus elected from a district in Florida and highly critical of Indian Gaming), and the Volume Cap for Tribal Economic Development Bonds**, are object, third-party determinations that "significantly less access to finance capital" exists in "Indian Country" within the country with the highest ranking GDP.
I developed all this (a bunch of supporting data and papers on Tribes and their bonding authority and experience) when I thought that the JAS effort might benefit a new gTLD applicant organic to, or at least committed to serving, some Indigenous Peoples, which of course did not occur. I briefly considered the equivalent issue of tax exempt bonds as a means of access to finance capital and the bonding authority of Treaty Bands in Canada. I don't consider my knowledge in this area equivalent to my knowledge of the situation for Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in the United States.
What was intended for the new gTLD program can be repurposed to address a long-standing deficiency in the Fellowship Program.
If you'd like we can work on this off the na-discuss list. There are Indian Telecoms and Datacoms lists, and some of the content relates to ICANN and network access policy.
Again, please pass along my contact info, should you think it useful.
Eric
* UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, at http://www.unohrlls.org
LDC defined at: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/164/ LLDC defined at: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/lldc/31/ SDC defined at: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/sids/43/
** http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Exempt-Bonds/Published-Volume-Cap-Limit-for-Tribal-Ec...
Hi all, Here is a blurb that I did on this issue for consideration by the Fellowship Program. It has been submitted for their consideration. You can use any parts of this that may be useful or not as you might wish. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Chillcott Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:29 AM To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Indigenous Peoples Fellowship Program Eric: Thank you for your note and my apologies for not responding sooner - I've been under the weather with a bad cold for a week and I'm just crawling out from under now. And trying to catch up. My meeting with my contact was VERY brief - and the result was simply that we'll get together at the next meeting to talk further. I will keep your contact information handy, Eric, with my thanks. I also plan, with your permission, to bring along a copy of your e-mail, just in case it proves useful. Gordon On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 10:09 -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
Gordon,
Ever since John Afele and I undertook outreach to Indigenous Populations -- and my focus was the Americas and Oceania -- during the June 2000 Membership Implementation Task Force -- the progenitor of an "At Large", it has been wicked difficult to offer utility in participating in ICANN sufficient to motivate FN/NA/Metis/Indios to engage, and amongst those who do, to remain engaged.
A long-winded way of saying that if you know of any FN, Metis, or Allied individuals considering engaging in any part of ICANN, please do pass along my contact information to him/her/them.
The criteria used by ICANN for its Fellowship Program is:
"Applicants must be citizens of economically eligible countries. We use a combination of the World Bank classification of low, lower-middle, and upper-middle economies, along with two (2) UN groupings of developing and least developed nations: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/sids/44/, http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/25/ which are based on distinctly different criteria which stretch beyond the World Bank's economically deterministic view. "
Here is a brief outline of how I currently view how ICANN can, should it decide to, approach the question of extending its existing Fellowship Program to distinct, under-served populations lacking the objective third-party generated identifiers used, e.g., to provide a delegation from the IANA root zome to an applicant for a Memorandum, rather than a Contract, form of operational agreement (the UN Statistical Agency's designation of Palestine as a distinct identifier, leading to the allocation of "PS" in ISO 3166-1), or the criteria published by the UN-OHRLLS*.
The current interpretation of the tax authority of the United States is that bonding authority of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes is not capable of issuing tax exempt bonds except for "Government Purposes", unlike the bonding authority of States and their subordinate political jurisdictions -- cities and so forth, which may issue tax exempt bonds for arbitrary purposes, e.g., construction of sports arenas, etc.
This IRS enforced relative deficiency (originating from a lone member of the Republican House Caucus elected from a district in Florida and highly critical of Indian Gaming), and the Volume Cap for Tribal Economic Development Bonds**, are object, third-party determinations that "significantly less access to finance capital" exists in "Indian Country" within the country with the highest ranking GDP.
I developed all this (a bunch of supporting data and papers on Tribes and their bonding authority and experience) when I thought that the JAS effort might benefit a new gTLD applicant organic to, or at least committed to serving, some Indigenous Peoples, which of course did not occur. I briefly considered the equivalent issue of tax exempt bonds as a means of access to finance capital and the bonding authority of Treaty Bands in Canada. I don't consider my knowledge in this area equivalent to my knowledge of the situation for Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in the United States.
What was intended for the new gTLD program can be repurposed to address a long-standing deficiency in the Fellowship Program.
If you'd like we can work on this off the na-discuss list. There are Indian Telecoms and Datacoms lists, and some of the content relates to ICANN and network access policy.
Again, please pass along my contact info, should you think it useful.
Eric
* UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, at http://www.unohrlls.org
LDC defined at: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/164/ LLDC defined at: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/lldc/31/ SDC defined at: http://www.unohrlls.org/en/sids/43/
** http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Exempt-Bonds/Published-Volume-Cap-Limit-for-Tri bal-Economic-Development-Bonds
------ 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 ------
Dear Colleagues, The Thompson text, already submitted and so beyond recall, only refers to employment data from Nunavut, and that only from 2001. For those not familiar with the administrative law scope of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND), the term "Indian" refers to Status Indians defined by the Indian Act of 1951, subsequently modified by the Constitution Act of 1982, and subsequently modified, extending Indian Status to Indian Women who previously lost that Indian Status upon contracting marriage to a non-Indian, by amendment in 1985. The scope of DIAND is modernly this larger class of Status Indians, First Nations (governments with which the Crown entered into treaties, e.g., the Numbered Treaties), Inuit (not restricted to the Inuit population of Nunavut) and Metis. For those not familiar with the administrative law scope of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (DoI, BIA), the term "Indian" refers to Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and their citizens, Native Alaskans and Native Hawi'ians. The form of "Federal Recognition" consists of Treaty Tribes, Indian Territory Tribes (extinguished between the Oklahoma Statehood Act and the Principal Chiefs Act), post-1870 unratified Treaty Tribes, Native Corporations formed under Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Native Hawi'ians, and modern Executive, Congressional and Judicial Acts, Public Laws, and Rulings establishing, or re-establishing, government to government relationships, e.g., the Maine Land Claims Settlement Acts of 1980 and 1995. While territorially large, the Inuit population of Nunuvut comprise a less than half of the total Inuit population (Greenland and Russia excluded), and less than 0.5% of the First Nation, Metis, and Inuit population claimed by Canada, and only one of the 630 Native Governments with government-to-government relations with the Government of Canada. Another 566 Native Governments have government-to-government relations with the Government of the United States. Personally, I'd prefer to offer greater detail, as the decision to revise the eligibility criteria of the Fellowship Program may be referred to the Board and Corporation Counsel, and as it would, if entertained, alter the status quo, be subject to critical review by parties interested in restricting the existing distribution of travel support to the North American Region to NARALO's Chair, its Secretary, and an occasional additional person. Interests in regional under-representation could come from regional resident for-profit or governmental participants, or from others with a property interest in a finite share of the status quo distribution of travel support that may be reduced if the Fellowship Program eligibility rule were modified. I would also, and this was an issue over which there is a history of difference, address the fact that the larger Indigenous Language populations in the United States are those speaking Nahuatl, Maya, Mixtec and Zapotec, and who do not fall within the administrative law scope of the BIA, but cannot be presumed to have no interest in access to the internet, or that their interest is met elsewhere. Authorship has responsibilities, for style, tone, intent, and misplaced commas. There is no one right way to plead the case that a rule intended to benefit a class or a category has unintended, but curable consequences. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Wow! Quite an education for me! Thanks. Peter On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams < ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The Thompson text, already submitted and so beyond recall, only refers to employment data from Nunavut, and that only from 2001.
For those not familiar with the administrative law scope of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND), the term "Indian" refers to Status Indians defined by the Indian Act of 1951, subsequently modified by the Constitution Act of 1982, and subsequently modified, extending Indian Status to Indian Women who previously lost that Indian Status upon contracting marriage to a non-Indian, by amendment in 1985. The scope of DIAND is modernly this larger class of Status Indians, First Nations (governments with which the Crown entered into treaties, e.g., the Numbered Treaties), Inuit (not restricted to the Inuit population of Nunavut) and Metis.
For those not familiar with the administrative law scope of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (DoI, BIA), the term "Indian" refers to Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and their citizens, Native Alaskans and Native Hawi'ians. The form of "Federal Recognition" consists of Treaty Tribes, Indian Territory Tribes (extinguished between the Oklahoma Statehood Act and the Principal Chiefs Act), post-1870 unratified Treaty Tribes, Native Corporations formed under Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Native Hawi'ians, and modern Executive, Congressional and Judicial Acts, Public Laws, and Rulings establishing, or re-establishing, government to government relationships, e.g., the Maine Land Claims Settlement Acts of 1980 and 1995.
While territorially large, the Inuit population of Nunuvut comprise a less than half of the total Inuit population (Greenland and Russia excluded), and less than 0.5% of the First Nation, Metis, and Inuit population claimed by Canada, and only one of the 630 Native Governments with government-to-government relations with the Government of Canada. Another 566 Native Governments have government-to-government relations with the Government of the United States.
Personally, I'd prefer to offer greater detail, as the decision to revise the eligibility criteria of the Fellowship Program may be referred to the Board and Corporation Counsel, and as it would, if entertained, alter the status quo, be subject to critical review by parties interested in restricting the existing distribution of travel support to the North American Region to NARALO's Chair, its Secretary, and an occasional additional person. Interests in regional under-representation could come from regional resident for-profit or governmental participants, or from others with a property interest in a finite share of the status quo distribution of travel support that may be reduced if the Fellowship Program eligibility rule were modified.
I would also, and this was an issue over which there is a history of difference, address the fact that the larger Indigenous Language populations in the United States are those speaking Nahuatl, Maya, Mixtec and Zapotec, and who do not fall within the administrative law scope of the BIA, but cannot be presumed to have no interest in access to the internet, or that their interest is met elsewhere.
Authorship has responsibilities, for style, tone, intent, and misplaced commas. There is no one right way to plead the case that a rule intended to benefit a class or a category has unintended, but curable consequences.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon ------ 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 ------
-- Peter T. Knight, Ph.D. Estrategista de e-Transformação +55 (21) 3576-7674 Rio Escritório +55 (21) 2522-9167 Rio Fax, Res. +55 (21) 7519-9033 Rio Celular (capacitado para Viber) +1 (202) 281-4144 US mobile http://br.linkedin.com/in/petertknight Skype: <minhoco2005>
Hi all, Perhaps I didn't make this very clear in my last e-mail. I put that document together to show one user's perspective on NA indigenous people's participation in the fellowship program. It was never intended to be the final word or to prohibit other submissions to the Fellowship Program on this topic. At the time that I did the document there was no one else around creating any of this material and I felt that something was better than nothing in this regard. I was using the Inuit population as a good example of the conditions that many first nations people, both on and off reserve, are faced with - I was not writing in order to exclude any other aboriginal groups. I do think its a bit of a stretch to assume that changes to the Fellowship Program would necessarily change anything in regards to travel for leadership positions and I don't think that the two should be merged as it will just muddy the waters and take attention away from the importance of including North American aboriginal people in the Fellowship Program but that's just my opinion. It would be really nice if someone put together a more comprehensive document, hence my offer that others could use any (or none) of my document - but so far I have not seen that happen. I would most certainly encourage any efforts in this regard as this is an important issue and offer any assistance in this regard, if it is desired. 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) 975-5610 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: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:17 PM Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Indigenous Peoples Fellowship Program Dear Colleagues, The Thompson text, already submitted and so beyond recall, only refers to employment data from Nunavut, and that only from 2001. For those not familiar with the administrative law scope of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND), the term "Indian" refers to Status Indians defined by the Indian Act of 1951, subsequently modified by the Constitution Act of 1982, and subsequently modified, extending Indian Status to Indian Women who previously lost that Indian Status upon contracting marriage to a non-Indian, by amendment in 1985. The scope of DIAND is modernly this larger class of Status Indians, First Nations (governments with which the Crown entered into treaties, e.g., the Numbered Treaties), Inuit (not restricted to the Inuit population of Nunavut) and Metis. For those not familiar with the administrative law scope of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (DoI, BIA), the term "Indian" refers to Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and their citizens, Native Alaskans and Native Hawi'ians. The form of "Federal Recognition" consists of Treaty Tribes, Indian Territory Tribes (extinguished between the Oklahoma Statehood Act and the Principal Chiefs Act), post-1870 unratified Treaty Tribes, Native Corporations formed under Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Native Hawi'ians, and modern Executive, Congressional and Judicial Acts, Public Laws, and Rulings establishing, or re-establishing, government to government relationships, e.g., the Maine Land Claims Settlement Acts of 1980 and 1995. While territorially large, the Inuit population of Nunuvut comprise a less than half of the total Inuit population (Greenland and Russia excluded), and less than 0.5% of the First Nation, Metis, and Inuit population claimed by Canada, and only one of the 630 Native Governments with government-to-government relations with the Government of Canada. Another 566 Native Governments have government-to-government relations with the Government of the United States. Personally, I'd prefer to offer greater detail, as the decision to revise the eligibility criteria of the Fellowship Program may be referred to the Board and Corporation Counsel, and as it would, if entertained, alter the status quo, be subject to critical review by parties interested in restricting the existing distribution of travel support to the North American Region to NARALO's Chair, its Secretary, and an occasional additional person. Interests in regional under-representation could come from regional resident for-profit or governmental participants, or from others with a property interest in a finite share of the status quo distribution of travel support that may be reduced if the Fellowship Program eligibility rule were modified. I would also, and this was an issue over which there is a history of difference, address the fact that the larger Indigenous Language populations in the United States are those speaking Nahuatl, Maya, Mixtec and Zapotec, and who do not fall within the administrative law scope of the BIA, but cannot be presumed to have no interest in access to the internet, or that their interest is met elsewhere. Authorship has responsibilities, for style, tone, intent, and misplaced commas. There is no one right way to plead the case that a rule intended to benefit a class or a category has unintended, but curable consequences. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon ------ 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 ------
Gordon, and interested Colleagues, While not specific to the issue of ICANN's Fellowship Program and its present absolute bar to Indigenous applicants from Canada, the United States, Mexico, Chile, Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia, the link below is useful, setting the issue of access to policy making in context. Recently I'd the pleasure of assisting Ms. Lily Yan, a third year law student who had interned at GoDaddy last Summer and developed an interest in the delegation policy for "sovereigns". She was directed to me by Professor Robert A. Williams, Jr., who assisted Bob Gough and I in ICANN's first Reconsideration Request (for an Indigenous Intellectual Property presence within the Intellectual Property Constituency). Her paper provides an accessible overview of the issues, unfortunately time and space available did not allow her to include materials that Jean Polly was kind enough to provide me, as well as other sources of primary documents and personal memories. Ms. Yan's received the first-place award for her paper, "Uncharted Domains and the New Land Rush: Indigenous Rights to Top-Level Domain", in the inaugural student research awards given by the Ross-Blakley Law Library. It may be read at, or downloaded from, the following URL: http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d&tabid=803 I recommend this to anyone looking for reading on Indians and ICANN. For my own part I'll finish what I began during the Joint Application Support Working Group's lifetime and write a memo on Tribal Bonding Authority (US) and access to finance capital sufficient to meet the (sharply elevated over prior new gTLD rounds) financial criteria ICANN published in 2013/2013 for registry applicants, as I think this useful in its own right for informing the Community on the question of Indigenous Access, and directly addresses the organic capacity of Indigenous Governments to fund "participants" in ICANN beyond the current small set of such persons. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene Oregon
participants (4)
-
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Gordon Chillcott -
Peter Knight -
Thompson, Darlene