[NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions

Fri Aug 29 12:54:07 EDT 2008

Eduardo,

Would you see a value in the creation of an ICANN Caribbean Geographic Region?

--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Eduardo Diaz <ediaz at prtc.net> wrote:

> From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz at prtc.net>
> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions
> To: dannyyounger at yahoo.com, "'NA Discuss'" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "'Evan Leibovitch'" <evan at telly.org>
> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 12:49 PM
> The question is: Can we be part of two regions at the same
> time? So far the answers has been no.
> 
> Eduardo Diaz
> ISOC-Puerto Rico
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:39 PM
> To: NA Discuss; Evan Leibovitch
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions
> 
> Let's consider ICANN's current North American
> Region:
> 
> American Samoa -- in Asia/Pacific
> Guam -- in Asia/Pacific
> Northern Mariana Islands -- in Asia/Pacific
> United States Minor Outlying Islands  -- in Asia/Pacific
> United States 
> Canada 
> Puerto Rico -- in Caribbean region
> Virgin Islands, U.S. -- in Caribbean region
> 
> Yes, it looks weird as part of the region is on the other
> side of the world but I think we need to get down to
> fundamental principles in our analysis.  Ultimately I think
> that the local internet community should be the ones
> self-selecting in which ICANN region they wish to reside.
> 
> The difficulty, of course, arrives when contemplating the
> creation of new regions.
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 8/29/08, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions
> > To: dannyyounger at yahoo.com, "NA Discuss"
> <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 11:59 AM
> > I have long thought that the ICANN methods for
> chopping up
> > the world,
> > both in process and result, have been drug-induced.
> Even
> > the act of
> > having the Caribbean put in LAC rather than NA seems
> > strange. Under its
> > regs, Puerto Rico and Guam are in NA but Jamaica is in
> LAC.
> > 
> > Many global bodies, from the UN to FIFA, have dealt
> with
> > the touchy
> > issues of regional groupings. ICANN should not go
> anywhere
> > near
> > re-inventing this wheel, but rather use other
> well-accepted
> > norms
> > created elsewhere.
> > 
> > 
> > Danny Younger wrote:
> > > Concern over the proper formulation of the ICANN
> > Geographic Regions has long been a significant part of
> > At-Large structure-building considerations with the
> earliest
> > recommendations dating back to the 2001 proposal of
> the
> > At-Large Study Committee to create a
> Central/West/South Asia
> > Region (CWSA)
> > > comprising India (.in), Pakistan (.pk),
> Afghanistan
> > (.af), Kazakhstan (.kz), Uzbekistan (.uz), Kyrgyzstan
> (.kg),
> > Turkmenistan (.tm), Tajikistan (.tj), Sri Lanka (.lk),
> > Maldives (.mv), Iraq (.iq), Iran (.ir), Israel (.il),
> Syria
> > (.sy), Jordan (.jo), Lebanon (.lb), Palestine
> Territories
> > (.ps), Kuwait (.kw), UAE (.ae), Yemen (.ye), Oman
> (.om),
> > Bahrain (.bh), Qatar (.qa), Saudi Arabia (.sa).
> > >   
> > Of course, in such a structure Israel -- a significant
> > global player in
> > hi-tech in general and one of the more least-censored
> > societies in that
> > region -- would be aggressively silenced. (In most
> > international
> > groupings it's usually included in Europe.)
> > 
> > My point here is not the resolution of in what region
> to
> > put Israel, so
> > much as to demonstrate this problem as an example of
> the
> > kind of
> > political wrangling in which ICANN has absolutely no
> > business engaging.
> > 
> > ICANN has enough on its plate without having to deal
> with
> > the
> > significant politics behind these issues, and is well
> > advised to use
> > existing standards created elsewhere rather than
> create its
> > own. The
> > inclusion of Israel in the Mideast region by the 2001
> study
> > committee,
> > only lays bare that group's ignorance of the
> political
> > nuances at play.
> > This is not an indictment of the group so much as an
> > illustration of
> > ICANN's (fully understandable) unsuitability to
> create
> > such boundaries
> > on its own.
> > 
> > It's bad enough that ICANN touches into politics
> in
> > regards to ccTLDs
> > (ie, the intensive lobbying regarding
> ".eh"). We
> > should be involved in
> > such politics as little as is absolutely possible. It
> > should be up to
> > other bodies, not ICANN, to determine whether (for
> > instance) Abkhazia
> > requires its own TLD. Same goes for defining regional
> > divisions; we're
> > not the only ones needing to deal with the shifts in
> > international
> > influence.
> > 
> > > The recent recommendations of the Westlake
> Consulting
> > Team charged with the current ALAC review follow in
> this
> > spirit by recognizing that ICANN’s geographic
> regional
> > structure is not well aligned with global population
> > distribution and is increasingly unrepresentative of
> > world-wide Internet usage, leading Westlake to
> recommend
> > increasing the number of NomCom appointees to the ALAC
> by
> > two members, both of whom would be from Asia.
> > >   
> > The analysis of this that we presented at Paris found
> this
> > approach
> > horribly flawed, not in the least by its exclusive use
> of
> > unaccountable
> > appointees -- with no mandate for community
> accountability
> > -- to address
> > the issue of regional imbalance. If countries are
> > under-represented then
> > fix the regions. Adding two NomComms without any other
> > regional change
> > comes across as the weakest possible answer to this
> > question. If AP
> > needs to be split, then split it.
> > 
> > (It's my personal hope that as At-Large matures
> that an
> > effective ALAC
> > can eventually be 100% representative. I fully accept
> that
> > right now
> > such level of maturity does not yet exist. But adding
> > NomComms to ALAC
> > without any corresponding ALS elected/accountable reps
> > seems a step
> > backwards.)
> > 
> > > As any change in the total number or composition
> of
> > ICANN geographic Regions will impact ICANN's
> At-Large
> > Structures, we formally request that an at-large
> > representative from each current ICANN Geographic
> Region be
> > included in the Board-appointed community-wide working
> group
> > to review the structure of ICANN's present
> Geographic
> > Regions and related issues.
> > I believe we ought to take a position that ICANN has
> no
> > business
> > re-inventing this wheel, and should find an existing
> > diplomatically-created regional split that we can live
> > with.
> > 
> > Like ALAC, ICANN itself needs to focus on its own
> resources
> > on policy;
> > volunteers are already spread too thin. Expending such
> > scarce resources
> > on political issues -- in which ICANN has even less
> > experience or
> > credibility than usual -- is an  unnecessary diversion
> and
> > needless
> > vision creep.
> > 
> > - Evan
> 
> 
>       
> 
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.13/1641 - Release
> Date: 8/29/2008 7:07 AM