[ALAC] [LAC-ALS] [NA-ALS] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeupof ICANN Regions underway

[Omar Kaminski]

Trying to see the proposed situation as a projection for a 
not-very-far-future, sounds like putting together some of these areas on 
struggle is to look for more trouble, now on cyberspace.

Perhaps they will force for a dot oil TLD... :))

Respectfully,

Omar



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Nick Ashton-Hart
To: Danny Younger
Cc: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [LAC-ALS] [ALAC] [NA-ALS] ACTION ITEM: Consultation on makeupof 
ICANN Regions underway


If the community wishes to reiterate support for this recommendation on the 
regions now would be an appropriate time to do so.

With respect to the other points below not related to the consultation on 
regions, the upcoming External Review of At-Large would, it is submitted, be 
an opportunity to make these views known, and any others with respect to the 
structure of At-Large within ICANN, for those who might wish to do so.


On 07/02/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> wrote:
Nick,

you may want to remind Paul that the At-Large Study
Committee recommended the creation of a sixth ICANN
region 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, the board ignored this recommendation along
with the recommendation to establish an At-Large
Supporting Organization (ALS0) and the recommendation
to seat 6 At-Large Directors within the 19 member
Board.

So why don't we play at reorganizing the regions
instead of focusing on efforts to restore the
representation that has been denied to us... perhaps
that will keep us sufficiently diverted...