[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 10:54:44 UTC 2014

Dear all, The assignment of countries and territories in the UN list that ICANN regions is based upon has been made for statistical convenience (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm) only and "does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the  United Nations". 
In the UN context, for purposes of regional representation and elections (including, eg., selecting government representatives for IGF MAG and other Internet Governance -related bodies)   the member states are divided into five geopolitical groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Regional_Groups).  Since the ICANN regions basically serve the same  function (ensuring equitable regional representation to various bodies), it would be logical to use this latter UN list as a model for ICANN regions. 
Correcting the present anomaly should at least be set as a long-term goal.
Best,
Yrjö

> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 10:29:14 +0100
> From: ocl at gih.com
> To: jjs at dyalog.net; euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org; wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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