[EURO-Discuss] RE : Re: [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace

Fri Jan 3 10:16:26 UTC 2014

Dear Olivier,

it's not as if I was not aware of the work which has been going on for years. When serving on the Board, I had addressed the problem too. Here are specific answers to your remarks:

- "ALAC was asked a very specific task: to agree or disagree...". That's part of the problem, not the solution. If a majority of the Working Group decides that things should not change, then following the "business as usual" rule will not bring about the required change.

- "... the initial choice, as explained in the report, came from the UN list (...), so you'll have to complain to the UN for this". In strategic terms, it is never in the interest of a beneficiary to question the method which gave her/him/it an advantage in the first place. Your observations seems to suggest that because the initial model was the UN, therefore it was legitimate (I don't question that) and therefore that those choices remain valid (which I question).

- The bottom line is this: we can of course be the disciplined pupil and answer "yes" or "no"; or we can use this opportunity to point out that, for a number of reasons which have accrued over the years, this binary choice is NO LONGER satisfactory. Taking the latter position would require a more fundamental questioning about the adequacy of the current system, and also require the ALAC to suggest corrective measures. The suggested EURALO position, which I support, takes us in that direction.

- My suggestion is that the ALAC
   - indicate that in order not to hold up the ongoing WG exercise, the ALAC abstains (thus showing respect for the work accomplished, including by its 2 representatives, but considering the outcome as unsatisfactory),
   - call for a more fundamental review, with a one-year or 2-year timeline. Such a review should be determined more explicitly by the realities of today and the probabilities of tomorrow. The initial contribution of the ALAC could be a list of the points that, in the current system, constitute a serious discrepancy between the inherited (UN) model and the challenges for ICANN and for the Internet in this early 21st century.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com>
To: "jjs" <jjs at dyalog.net>, "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Wolf Ludwig" <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net>
Sent: Vendredi 3 Janvier 2014 10:29:14
Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] RE : Re: [community] At-Large Policy Development > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace

Dea all,

while I completely agree with the points you are raising regarding the
anomaly of the current geographical regions, I would like to remind you
that the ALAC was asked a very specific task: to agree or disagree on
the final report of the Geographic Regions Working Group. The WG has
been in operation for several years and has looked at each and every
point you are all making already. So the ALAC cannot spearhead anything
except if it wants to show, alone, that it hasn't been paying attention
to what its members, Carlton Samuels and Cheryl Langdon Orr, were doing
for two years within the Geo Regions WG.
At this very late final stage, I asked Tijani to keep our comments as
short as possible. We are commenting on a *final report* of a working
group that has now completed its work.

Re: making an initial choice to deliberately favour some countries, I
remind you that the initial choice, as explained in the report, came
from the UN List of Countries and Territories, so you'll have to
complain to the UN for this.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 03/01/2014 09:37, jjs wrote:
> I support Wolf's suggestion: the ICANN map of regions is inconsistant with reality. Yes, stiching Armenia onto the fabric of the Pacific is gross.
>
> But we need to take this action a step further. It is time to draw attention to the geo-srategic anomalies of the current arrangement. Example: bundling together the whole of Asia and the Pacific has provided some countries (Australia, New Zealand) with an advantage, not only in comparison with much larger populations (China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan...), but also in relation to much smaller ones. While NA and LA broadly reflect reality, ICANN's current geography is unfair in Europe or AP.
>
> One is even led to wonder if the initial choice was not made deliberately to favour some countries (say "white" English-speaking) to the detriment of others?
>
> It's high time for ICANN to make its map of regions more credible for the twenty-first century. And the ALAC can spearhead such a move.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> -------- Message d'origine --------
> De : Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu> 
> Date : 03/01/2014  8:34  (GMT+01:00) 
> A : Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net> 
> Cc : EURALO LIST <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
> Objet : Re: [EURO-Discuss] [community] At-Large Policy Development >
>  	At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic
>  	Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace 
>  
> Dear Wolf:	I agree that EURALO should re-submit the 2011 statement, as you propose.
>
> Happy New Year
>
> CW
>
>
> On 03 Jan 2014, at 03:12, "Wolf Ludwig (Confluence)" <no-reply at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> <avatar_793e33665df27bee6180f6a56831b0e6.jpeg>	
>> Wolf Ludwig added a comment to the page:
>> <comment-icon.png> At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
>> I have submitted an EURALO position already on ICANN's geographic regions during the last consultations round (in January 2011) – with no result or consideration. I think that the first two points of our statement are still relevant from our regional (European) POV: (...)
>>
>> 1.      However, when we were looking at the key references for the definition of the existing ICANN regions we found out that most of them are UN-based and applied by the UN system. The UN references are predominant and make sense for many parts of the world but they do not necessarily reflect the extraordinary diversity of (ICANN) regions like Asia-Pacific and Europe. From a European point of view and perspective, the standards and definitions set by the Council of Europe (CoE) are broadly relevant, accepted and important. And many countries are part of Europe and its regional definition – according to CoE standards – which are situated in the East – see: http://www.ena.lu/member_states_european_organisations_2008-021000009.html
>>
>> Some of these countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan or Georgia are members of the CoE but considered in other classification models (incl. ICANN) as part of the Asian region. We therefore suggest that the definitions and classifications by the Council of Europe are taken into consideration as well in the ICANN context.
>>
>> 2.      In recent years, EURALO had some discussions with people from Eastern countries like Armenia and Azerbaijan who expressed strong interest in joining and participating in our RALO, arguing that they have a stronger affinity to Europe than to the Asian region (for historical, cultural etc. reasons). We always had to reassure them that they “formally” and, according to ICANN definitions, are part of APRALO. When we were arguing before to maintain the existing regional model at ICANN as a general rule, we would like to suggest some considerations on exceptional or border cases and to introduce a new “principle of self-determination” for such particular border cases. We are conscious that exceptions always need to be well justified to avoid abuses. And such a “principle of self-determination” needs to be further discussed and specified on particular circumstances, procedures of consultations, mutual approval and decision-making. In the given example of Armenia or Azerbaijan, a consultation process with the regions concerned (APRALO and EURALO) would be indispensable. And a decision on any exceptional application could be taken with the approval by both RALOs concerned only (sort of mutual recognition procedure – MRP). We are aware that there is always a justified fear of undesired precedence involved, but such a “principle of self-determination” is recognised in international law as well.
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> Thanks for taking our concerns into account.
>>
>> View Online · Like · Reply To This	Stop watching page · Manage Notifications
>> This message was sent by Atlassian Confluence 5.1.5, Team Collaboration Software
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html