[EURO-Discuss] Trip to Caucasus

[EMP]

Veni, does it mean that ICANN can cover at least his travel expences?

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

> Oksana , just to make sure - we're talking a out engaging him in the ALAC
> work, not in the governmental one. If he can do both - great. As for Icann,
> web are working with all stakeholders in the region, so Grigori has our
> support.
>
> On Thursday, May 23, 2013, EMP wrote:
>
> > Dear Roberto,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your extremely interesting and useful
> information!
> > Armenian experience really deserves special interest from ICANN!
> >
> > Last month we organized round table in our Ukrainian ccTLD, and invited
> > Grigory Sagnyan from Armenia for remote participation. He told us a lot
> > about Armenian experience, and in Ukraine there is great interest for it.
> > When we hear about Finnish experience, for example, it seems to us
> > absolutely unachievable. But Armenia has a lot in common with us, and the
> > gap in Internet Governance issues are more obvious. And namely Armenian
> > ISOC Chapter (Igor first of all) is much more easier to understand our
> > problems with our ISOC Chapter formation, than even Jacek.
> >
> > And it's true not only for Ukraine, but for a lot of other post-Soviet
> > countries. Especially regarding Internet and media literacy. We just
> > discussed this issue with our national regulator on telecommunications,
> and
> > we really need to work closer with our Armenian colleagues. Especially on
> > cybersecurity issues.
> >
> > Just now we are working on inviting Grigory to visit Kiev in person. I
> will
> > discuss this issue next week with our Internews office, but it would be
> > very important, if ICANN will be also engaged in it. Grigory's role  in
> > Dubai and in RCC is difficult to overestimate, he has personal contacts
> > with our top officials, and he really has a great potential to influence
> on
> > Ukrainian position in this sphere.
> >
> > Roberto, it was extremely important for me to see your understanding of
> > problems with geographical regions. We really have to do anything with
> it.
> >
> > Once again - thank you very much!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Oksana
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Roberto Gaetano <
> > roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all.
> > >
> > > I took the chance of a non-ICANN-related trip to Caucasus to contact
> the
> > > internet people, and specifically the At-Large structures, in the
> region.
> > >
> > > I was not on any official ICANN mission, but believe that it is worth
> > > anyway
> > > to write a short report of my contacts and personal considerations.
> > >
> > > I am addressing this to different mailing lists with separate messages,
> > to
> > > avoid cross-posting.
> > >
> > > As reference to earlier discussions, you can see that the issue of
> ICANN
> > > regions has been extensively debated. Follow up contacts have shown
> that
> > > the
> > > ccNSO is also not happy about the current subdivision. As for the ASO,
> > > because of their special internal structure, they are affected by the
> > > regions only when it comes to Board Directors election.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I had a very interesting meeting in Armenia, hosted by ISOC AM, with
> the
> > > Armenian ALSes.
> > >
> > > The main points that came out from the discussion were (to the best of
> my
> > > recollection):
> > >
> > > .         The fact that the development of the internet in Armenia is
> > > consistently more advanced than in some neighboring countries (for
> > > instance,
> > > there are 3 ALSes) depends on a mix of elements, including the presence
> > in
> > > Armenia of highly skilled ITC professionals as well as the vision that
> > has
> > > identified since the early days the potential of the internet. This
> > > experience will be very difficult to replicate in other countries, at
> > least
> > > in the short term.
> > >
> > > .         Thanks to the early vision, Armenia has developed the
> > > "multi-stakeholder" concept also in the management of the internet at
> the
> > > national level. The ccTLD operator, the ISPs, the At-Large structures,
> > > commercial organizations, the government, are tightly collaborating,
> and
> > > there is also the initiative of a permanent IGF forum in Armenia. This
> > has
> > > allowed to have very advanced positions in international fora, where
> all
> > > stakeholders are contributing, and we do not have the situation that
> can
> > be
> > > seen in other countries, where the government is imposing its view.
> > >
> > > .         Looking at the map of the world, and the location of the
> ALSes,
> > > it
> > > appears clearly that there is a wide area, namely the former Soviet
> Union
> > > states in central Asia, where there is no ALAC presence. This is felt
> to
> > be
> > > tightly correlated with the fact that the position that these countries
> > > bring in the international debate are only depending on government
> > > opinions.
> > > In order to promote ICANN's multi-stakeholder approach, ALAC should
> make
> > an
> > > outreach effort to these countries with the objective of gaining
> members.
> > > The general opinion is that this will be a difficult objective to
> > achieve,
> > > but nevertheless it is strategically important.
> > >
> > > .         The current location of Armenia in APRALO is creating serious
> > > problems. It should be noted that the Armenian ccTLD operator is a
> member
> > > of
> > > CENTR (the European ccTLD operators organization), ISPs are getting
> their
> > > addresses from RIPE (the European Regional addressing organization),
> but
> > > the
> > > Armenian ALSes are forced to be associated to APRALO. Considering the
> > point
> > > above, i.e. the Armenian multi-stakeholder model that brings together
> > > different interests to cooperate at the national level, we have the
> > strange
> > > situation that national domain names and IP addresses depend from
> Europe,
> > > while At-Large structures depend from a different region. Moreover,
> there
> > > are at the At-Large level cooperation projects ongoing that are
> > coordinated
> > > by the European Union, and the location of Armenia in the AP ICANN
> region
> > > does make little sense, if any. For instance, if EURALO develops itself
> > as
> > > the partner of the European Union for such European projects, it would
> be
> > > extremely impractical to have participating ALSes being in a different
> > > region. Further considerations have been the location of Armenia in
> > Europe
> > > in a number of different international organizations.
> > >
> > > .         Armenia, being part of the former Soviet Union, has kept a
> > > network
> > > of contacts at the technical level with other operators that are part
> of
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best,
> Veni
> http://veni.com
> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski
> https://twitter.com/veni
>
> ***
> The opinions expressed above are those of
> the author, not of any organizations,
> associated with or related to him in
> any given way.
> ***
>
>
> == Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by the
> touchscreen keyboard. That's a nice excuse, isn't it;-)
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>