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

Fri Jan 3 13:59:06 UTC 2014

A few considerations.

The problem of the geographic regions is a complex one, involving several different considerations. Different constituencies have forced the current situation for their own interest deviating from the initial UN Countries and Territories list. For instance, already at the start, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands have been lumped together with Asia in an unmanageable AP region. Later on, GAC members and ccTLD members have obtained a nonsensical (from the internet users' point of view) change, moving territories all over the world under Europe, just because they were colonies of European countries. This has determined the difficulty for local communities to operate with their neighbors, who have similar problems and operate in the same time zone. Puerto Rico, that we all believe to be in the Caribbean, is in NA - it is in this capacity that the ICANN meeting #29 has been held there. These change have been done without minding (actually, not even asking) the consensus of the community.
I don't see why ALAC now has to endorse a majority view if it is convinced that the proposal is not fair, or does not address the questions that we have raised time and again over the years.
It is not a major disaster not to have consensus. It would be, however, a major problem and a breach of the fiduciary relationship with our members, to fail to reiterate our position.
This should not be disrespectful to our representatives to the working group, but can be the indication that this issue cannot be put to rest, because the problems have not been solved (not even addressed).

Cheers,
Roberto

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-
> bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> Inviato: venerdì 3 gennaio 2014 10:29
> A: jjs; Discussion for At-Large Europe; Wolf Ludwig
> Oggetto: 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