[lac-discuss-en] ????? = Iso-8859-1 At-Large_Solicitud_de_Escrito_Com == q iso-8859-1 q = unidad_ _Recomendaciones_del_Grupo_de_Trab == A1Opina_-iso-8859-1 q = E1ficas ajo_sobre_Regiones_Geogr? =

Tue Jan 7 22:20:04 UTC 2014

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: Re:????? = Iso-8859-1 At-Large_Solicitud_de_Escrito_Com == q iso-8859-1 q = unidad_ _Recomendaciones_del_Grupo_de_Trab == A1Opina_-iso-8859-1 q = E1ficas ajo_sobre_Regiones_Geogr? = 
 From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com

 Hi Alejandro: 
 Probably without meaning to, you raised a Most Important definitional issue 
 with Voluntary Organisations; extracting the motivations of Those Who 
 Participate and the very practical - using a more liberal term for 
 'Consensus' - results one must attempt to Achieve working from the inputs 
 of Those Who show up to work. Everyone will not get all They would wish. 
 But in the context, Achieving some of what you'd wish you to be good 
 enough. 

 This was indeed a proper style ICANN-WG. It follows the framework laid down 
 and we went thru all those cycles of negotiating the Charter; lots of docs 
 on that.What I laid out was my interpretation of a mix of conversations 
 from WG members, community activists who Showed for the seminars and 
 submissions from Those Who had an interest in the subject ... and took the 
 time to lay them out. I was hoping my backgrounder and a further reading of 
 reports would ease the identification of the elements That came from the 
 various motivations. 

 I Respond to an ALAC cattle call for volunteers; broadcasted on all 
 channels. Our [Caribbean] regional interests motivated me to respond. I 
 Also Earlier conversations went in from the Pacific Islands That shared our 
 interests, by and large. The Caribbean schedule is clear but maybe worth 
 repeating here. The Caribbean Declared consensus policy perspective is from 
 That is a an Internet platform for development, One That Allows us to 
 showcase our culture and way of life, not be that now or aspirational. We 
 translate this to mean an Internet That is singular, open and universally 
 accessible, One That links to each of us all of us. We are Compelled to 
 That Collaborate With Any effort enable, or conserve These project goals. 

 -Carlton 

 ============================== 
 A Carlton Samuels 
 Mobile: 876-818-1799 
 * Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &amp; Turnaround * 
 ============================= 

 On Fri, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com> wrote: 

> Carlton,
>
> thanks for this very valuable detailed description; you make this sound
> like a Special Interest Group, not an ICANN-proper Working Group. Guess we
> will have to go way back to understand motivations and conflicts of the
> participants. If the WG was bound to arrive at a constrained type of result
> from predetermined agendas and self-selection of participants, we have a
> much larger problem than deciding whether to suggest 3- or 5-year periods
> between region changes.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Carlton Samuels <
> carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alejandro:
>>  To answer your questions, its probably best to frame the answer with
>> some background.
>>
>> The WG was chaired by Dave Archbold my friend and neighbour from the
>> Cayman Islands. He is a member of the ccNSO community. Dave is originally
>> Brit but living in the CI coming on 30 years. He's islander to the core and
>> a Caribbean man as ever. In fact, he's spent more time living in the
>> Caribbean than I have.  The Cayman Islands, once a dependency of Jamaica,
>> is 45 minutes by jet from Kingston, Jamaica.  It is politically a British
>> Overseas Territory. Under existing ICANN geographic rules and for the
>> purposes of the At-Large, the Cayman Islands would be EURALO.
>>
>> This is a similar situation for such places in the English-speaking
>> Caribbean such as Turks & Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla
>> and Montserrat.
>>
>> The historical fact is that every single conglomeration of the Caribbean
>> Islands with Latin America has been difficult, principally from differences
>> in language and the tendency for those of the same cultural affinity to
>> favour those you feel share yours.  ECLAC, the OAS and PAHO are pieces of
>> evidence.
>>
>> The major contradistinctions in this view are Fidel and Hugo (May he
>> RIP).
>>
>> I also know that the Caribbean has historically seen itself as a distinct
>> Caribbean culture and not Latin. It is not controversial then that the
>> sentiments in the Cayman Islands and all the others are emphatically
>> pan-Caribbean as well.  However, in the context of ICANN At-Large, we are
>> LACRALO.
>>
>> From all of the consultations with the community, there was very little
>> sentiment for a growth in the number of regions.  The overwhelming
>> consensus view was that ICANN must follow its own head for defining its
>> regions.  However, there was overwhelming support for structures that
>> recognized the possibility that disparate geographic units around the world
>> may find common cause with each other, despite separation in distance or,
>> proximity to each other.  So, for example, meta-structures like Special
>> Interest Groups (SIG) were considered as useful in this regard;  an example
>> is a SIG of Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
>>
>> The WG also recognized the need to address the chafing and discomfort of
>> units placed in geographic regions they find ill-suited to their
>> affiliations and needs. Due consideration and embrace of ICANN's bottom-up
>> policy development process allowed the conclusion that individual
>> geographic units must be allowed a one time opportunity to choose the
>> region they would caucus with on execution of a well-defined and
>> transparent process.
>>
>> The overwhelming Caribbean sentiment is for a distinct region.  Same too
>> for the Arab states. Some believe the APRALO is way to big and thusly,
>> unrepresentative. But sentiments are largely against adding regions so
>> consensus was not possible here. Some Central Asian republics would wish to
>> caucus with EURALO instead of APRALO.  Absent the possibility for making
>> new regions, the report gave a good overlay of what might happen if some
>> countries with sentiments to move regions are accommodated. I will not
>> repeat them here but the working materials are available for research.
>>
>> The information on slides presented at the several community briefings
>> and seminars over the 2+ years of the WG's life also did a good job of
>> highlighting - and dramatising - these possibilities.  So, for example,
>> they show the Cayman Islands as moving from EURALO to LACRALO. Or, NARALO.
>> Or, following the precedent of the RIR boundaries, Barbados, Jamaica, St
>> Kitts & Nevis, Bahamas etc moving to NARALO.
>>
>> I believe this section was well documented and presented and the staff
>> support provided by Robert Hogarth was superlative overall but simply
>> splendid here.  He's absolutely the best for this kind of work from two
>> pre-eminent skills; he listens well and is great at seeing how interests
>> intersect. Armed with this understanding, he's done a really good job of
>> crafting appropriate compromise language in the report.
>>
>> -Carlton
>>
>>
>> ==============================
>> Carlton A Samuels
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> =============================
>>
>>
>> 2014/1/5 Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Hola,
>>>
>>> me sumo a las posiciones de Aída y Alberto en lo fundamental.
>>>
>>> En cuanto a los cambios de un país de una región a otra, no debemos
>>> perder
>>> de vista el principio "multistakeholder"; cuando se instituyan los
>>> procesos, deberán ser parecidos a los de una redelegación de ccTLD.
>>>
>>> Sí creo pertinente pedir precisiones a Carlton acerca de los efectos
>>> previstos para los cambios de región, en particular para Latinoamérica y
>>> el
>>> Caribe, con algunos ejemplos concretos. Le pediría describir
>>> especialmente
>>> dos casos: 1. el paso de países que actualmente están en LACRALO a otra
>>> región existente actualmente, y viceversa; 2. cambios en el caso de la
>>> creación de nuevas regiones. Esto además dará transparencia a su
>>> posición.
>>>
>>> Aprovecho para enviar a todos/as un excelente año en 2014.
>>>
>>> Saludos cordiales.
>>>
>>> Alejandro Pisanty
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014/1/5 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> > Estimados Carlton, Alberto y todos:
>>> >
>>> > Estoy de acuerdo con el informe. Entiendo que como dice Carlton el
>>> informe
>>> > refleja las recomendaciones que se propusieron.
>>> > Creo que se manejan criterios razonables como el de la ampliación del
>>> plazo
>>> > de 3 a 5 años; también con un margen razonable de flexibilidad,
>>> buscando no
>>> > generar distorsiones en el sistema general.
>>> > Contempla la autodeterminación al admitir que se puedan realizar  las
>>> > solicitudes  en base a criterios de libertad y soberanía pero también
>>> > articular en cada caso con  las posiciones de los países involucrados
>>>  y
>>> > también teniendo en cuenta las referencias geográficas.
>>> >  Por la naturaleza del documento no puede resolver cada caso concreto,
>>> pero
>>> > da pautas para su solución teniendo en cuenta las solicitudes y las
>>> > necesidades prioritarias de mantener un sistema global razonablemente
>>> > estable y confiable..
>>> >
>>> > Saludos a todos
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > El 5 de enero de 2014, 20:44, Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org
>>> > >escribió:
>>> >
>>> > > Estimado Carlton, hoy intenté dejar un comentario en la wiki, pero
>>> quizás
>>> > > por
>>> > > razones de comunicaciones no logré que el editor abriera el espacio
>>> para
>>> > mi
>>> > > comentario.
>>> > >
>>> > > Quería decir que estaba de acuerdo con Cheryl, quien a su vez estaba
>>> de
>>> > > acuerdo
>>> > > con opiniones anteriores, respecto de que es necesario considerar los
>>> > > casos de
>>> > > límites fronterizos, tal como estaban planteando dos casos entre
>>> Europa y
>>> > > Asia.
>>> > > Pero creo que también debe haber algún tipo de esclarecimiento de qué
>>> > casos
>>> > > pueden aceptarse en la reasignación de zonas geográficas. Los
>>> planteados
>>> > > están
>>> > > muy claros, y pese a ser de Asia, es casi natural que sean
>>> considerados
>>> > > dentro de
>>> > > Europa, por las razones expuestas. Pero son fronterizos.
>>> > > Y si tenemos algún pedido no fronterizo (quizás antojadizo...) para
>>> una
>>> > > reasignación de zona, por ejemplo entre LACRALO y AFRALO?
>>> > > Por ahora parecería que deben tenerse en cuenta los casos
>>> fronterizos.
>>> > > Habrá
>>> > > algunos casos particulares más, que no desvirtúen la aplicación de
>>> la ISO
>>> > > 3166??
>>> > > Que no se llegue a que un Gobierno local esté de acuerdo con el
>>> pedido, y
>>> > > luego
>>> > > aún despúes de eso, haya que decir que no?
>>> > > Saludos cordiales
>>> > >
>>> > > Alberto Soto
>>> > >
>>> > > On Sun 05/01/14 19:08 , carlton.samuels at gmail.com sent:
>>> > > > [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Asunto: At-Large Solicitud de Escrito Comunidad ¡Opina -
>>> > Recomendaciones
>>> > > > del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Regiones Geográficas
>>> > > > De: carlton.samuels at gmail.com
>>> > > >
>>> > > > El Domingo, 05 de enero 2014 a las 7:00 am,
>>> > > euro-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org> escribió:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic
>>> > > > > Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Cheryl Langdon Orr y yo representamos a la At-Large en este CCWG.
>>> Les
>>> > > > puedo decir
>>> > > > que hemos trabajado juntos para asegurar los puntos de vista de
>>> ALAC se
>>> > > > articularon antes de la
>>> > > > WG.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Y estamos convencidos de que el informe final refleja la
>>> optimización
>>> > > > expectativas de la ALAC como nosotros los concebimos.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > -Carlton
>>> > > >
>>> > > > ==============================
>>> > > > Carlton Un Samuels
>>> > > > Móvil: 876-818-1799
>>> > > > * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y Turnaround *
>>> > > > =============================
>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > >

[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/1cee63c63f.html
--]]