[lac-discuss-en] Comments from Caribbean ALSes on the Interim Report of the Geographic Regions Working Group

[Dev Anand Teelucksingh]

Please see below the statement from the Caribbean ALSes regarding the
Interim Report of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group.

Caribbean ALSes comments:

The defined geographic region of LACRALO has in the past detracted
from ICANN’s goal of reflecting the functional, geographic and
cultural diversity of the Caribbean
Region of Internet end-users. This is felt at a basic level via
participation on the mailing list and voicing opinions on matters; as
well as relating to larger issues, such as policy
development and voting of ALAC (and other) representatives.

ICANN’s Core Values
We recognise the Initial Report identified representation,
participation and operations as three primary usage categories.
Traditionally the Caribbean region has been under
represented and little involution has been made to encourage and
increase participation.

The argument for greater input from the Caribbean region is
strengthened by the addition of the concepts of “cultural diversity”
and “geographic diversity” to the ICANN Bye
Laws in 2002; the Caribbean being a unique segment of LACRALO in both
these categories and deserving of such recognition. Indeed ICANN, the
corporation, has since
2006 employed and tasked an employee to be the Caribbean liaison.

In our view, the mechanism by which ICANN’s core values are applied to
RALOs is ill-defined, but we can apply the guidelines of the bye laws
which state:
“Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the
functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all
levels of policy development and
decision-making.” --Fourth Core Value; and

Also while Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 4 which deals with ALAC
representatives is silent on this point; we can also apply guidance to
enshrine ICANN’s Core Values from:
“…composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in
geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective…” --Article VI
Section 2

Diversity

We agree in the broader recognition of “diversity” to include
additional considerations of culture and language in the LACRALO. The
Caribbean is distinct in terms of its history,
culture and language; further it has indigenous challenges being small
island states and specific needs which are not a natural fit with the
rest of Latin America. Due to these
differences LACRALO is able to benefit from varying opinions and has
the potential to be a truly representative region.

One small but important example is the predominant use of English
language in the Caribbean Region, however 90% of the mailing list
discussion takes place in Spanish.
With poor translation tools and the particular nuances between
languages; we struggle to understand each other and it becomes almost
prohibitively difficult to communicate,
follow topic threads collaborate and participate fully. Interpretation
between our two regions is currently poor and the result is
misunderstanding, frustration, duplicated
effort and ultimately lack of participation from our Region; thereby
resulting in under-representation of our particular perspectives and
points of view.

Numbers of Internet users
We agree that the only measure of “balance” should not be limited to
the number of internet users in a particular sub-region of LACRALO.
Balance must tie into and
promote diversity. This will only occur if it includes the stakeholder
groups in various communities of interest having clear view-points on
ICANN’s issues.

Often, because of our diversity we see two clear perspectives emerging
on issues-

on one side from the Latin American Region and on the other from the
Caribbean Region.

However, since the Caribbean is always in the minority (both in terms
of numbers of ALSes and users) our votes, our participation and our
opinions have little impact unless
an ‘arrangement’ is forged with Latin American representatives in
order to push a particular motion (on our behalf).

This is crippling to the Caribbean region’s presence in LACRALO on
several levels:

1. It diminishes participation of our members, due to lack of morale
when our perspective is ignored without any consideration and also due
to the level of
bureaucracy involved in contributing; and
2. It increases the challenge to recruit new members and ALSes because
of this sense of pseudo-involvement, marginalism and non-engagement.

As it stands, on many occasions the Caribbean voice in LACRALO is
indirectly but effectively diminished.

Those not represented

We have not had any input from the Caribbean end-user groups in
Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guyana, Curacao, Bonaire, Aruba, Puerto
Rico, US Virgin Islands
or British Virgin Islands with regard to their issues with being
aligned to their mother country. But we encourage that their opinion
be sought out by the Working Group.

Striking Balance

We have clearly identified these areas as opportunities to create
balance and build a more united LACRALO, and are supportive of the
GNSO Principle on Potential Change
of Regions (August 2008) which states that “ICANN regions should seek
to balance three goals: diversity of representation, ease of
participation, and simplicity” and
such simplicity “should be balanced with the evolving needs of ICANN’s
supporting organisations and other bodies.”

A Path Forward

Today the “C” in LACRALO means “CROSSROADS”. There are several options:

1.
Stay

We recognise that as a while we do have two different perspectives on
many matters, LACRALO as a whole is poised to become stronger and more
inclusive by recognising,
reviewing and where possible representing both views. In the Caribbean
we perceive our differences as strengths, which give us two separate
but equally important vantage points
to appreciate the whole. As such, we consider that the Latin American
Region not only gains from our perspective in conformance with ICANN’s
Core Values, but also benefits
by our native and dexterous use of English in reading, discussing,
presenting arguments and written contribution on behalf of the entire
region of LACRALO.

At times, we have not felt willingness by our partners to look beyond
their blinkers but we are hopeful that they will recognise the
importance of building a framework of
balance, not only in light of the above but to create unity and
cohesion in LACRALO.

In order to encourage this step and in consideration of the diversity
of representation, ease of participation, and simplicity goals
highlighted above, we have proposed a
LACRALO Bye Law modification, such that one of the LACRALO
Representatives to ALAC come from the Caribbean Region. This remains
our preferred option.

2.
Seek alignment with NARALO

While we have to go back a few centuries to find commonality in our
histories, both NARALO and the Caribbean Region share the same
language and akin perspectives on
many areas, including our view of democracy. These positives give a
strong impression that the Caribbean may find a better fit with NARALO
in order to contribute and
represent.

We are fully aware that it is near impossible to find perfect
alignment as the Caribbean region has a clear identity and there will
always be distinct aspect of our perspective. In
this respect the Caribbean region will only add to the diversity and
widen the viewpoint of whichever RALO it belongs to; what is crucial
is that value be given to that view when
it is expressed.

3.
New “Small Island Developing State” RALO (SIDSRALO)

We recognise that adding a new region to the existing geographic
regional framework results in increased costs for ICANN and perhaps
reduced net budget for each RALO.
Despite this cost issue, we recognise that the Core Values must
prevail and there is merit in having a new grouping specific to the
needs of Small Island Developing States like
ours.

Many of the smaller islands in our region are not represented because
of limited resources and we agree that ICANN’s structures and
processes should lower barriers
for participation and engagement by community members as much as
practicable. By forming this new grouping we can leverage on our
collective skills to support smaller
members not only in the Caribbean but globally, who will have almost
identical issues.

Perhaps the main drawback with a SIDSRALO would be that we would be
geographically dispersed and have to travel long distances for face to
face meetings such
as a General Assembly.

4.
Hybrid

This is a mix of option 1 or 2 with the additional support of forming
a special interest group by small Islands or similar culture
groupings. This is a mechanism of gaining the
benefits of both worlds and would facilitate that our voices are
represented in both ways.
However, this would require additional funding to facilitate
representation at meetings, calls, working groups etc. of the
particular special interest group.

Closing Points
The Caribbean ALSes consider that the Interim Report of the Geographic
Regions Working Group documents the existing situation, highlights the
issues arising and
connects these to ICANN’s Core Values. We however feel that there must
be a much firmer embrace of ICANN Core values in terms of balance,
representation, participation.

Notwithstanding the differences and issues that exist, the Caribbean
has a deep level of fidelity and attachment, and we wish to work and
function as an equal partner
in LACRALO. In this statement we have highlighted options to provide
balanced contributions and acknowledge that the simplest of these can
be realised in the immediate
sense with a few adjustments to LACRALO Charter.

We laud the Working Group, specifically with regard to identifying and
detailing the specific needs of Small Island Developing States and
will readily endorse such grouping
in whatever form. We hope that this step forward is not negated by
issues of funding, as the underlying aim of this assessment is to
encourage ICANN’s Core Values. We must
always seek out, cherish and ensure effective representation.