[NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions

[Dharma Dailey]

Beloved Evan and All,

At-Large is not a body of career diplomats who decide whether troops  
or aid get sent to conflict zones.   We are a bunch of volunteers  
representing internet users through the portal of one tiny component   
of a much larger body which for all practical purposes amounts to an  
industry trade organization-- not an international governance body.    
At-Large is uniquely charged with being the feeder roots to the  
grassroots -- "users" -- who embody the world wide web.  We should be  
ever on the look-out for ways to accommodate those who legitimately  
speak for internet users within At-Large.

Officially, within ICANN structure At-Large has nothing more than an  
advisory role.   What harm does it do to let those in At-Large self- 
select regions, switch regions, or participate in more than one?  What  
harm would it cause if At-Large allowed self-selection and other ICANN  
bodies followed different criteria?

The regional criteria beyond at-large, is more tricky.  May I suggest  
that Anglo-Americans like us should not be the loudest voices in the  
choir on this point?  I recommend that one of our NA colleagues who's  
1st language is *not* English be recruited to lead an articulation for  
NA on this.

-Dharma Dailey


On Aug 29, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Danny Younger wrote:
>> Virgin Islands, U.S. -- in Caribbean region
>>
> And, of course, Virgin Islands, U.K. is in EURALO
>
>> 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.
> Again, I disagree strongly. We need to get down to fundamentals of
> making ICANN policy like working on the RAA, Phantom Registrars, IPV6
> and so on.
>
> International geopolitics, OTOH, is not ICANN's core competency.
> (...comments aside about whether it has *any* core competency...) This
> is one field in which other groups, with better skills in this field
> than us, have agonized about this issue and spent decades on which
> imperfect answer comes closest to the goals of balance and  
> inclusiveness.
>
> I for one oppose more ICANN obsession with internal structure,
> especially when others -- with more experience in this sphere -- have
> already performed this task. Let's pick one of the existing recognized
> groupings and move on. Choosing which existing regional partition best
> suits ICANN's needs should be the only role of the regional-boundary
> committee.
>
>> Ultimately I think that the local internet community should be the  
>> ones self-selecting in which ICANN region they wish to reside.
>>
> So the map could be drawn differently from week to week depending on  
> who
> wants to go where? Of course, use of a map would probably be pointless
> because groups could choose to identify with regions on the other side
> of the world.
>
> And I can hardly wait for the first request of a Tibetan ALS that  
> wants
> to be located outside of China's region.
>
> Some people may have a taste for that particular kind of bloodsport  
> but
> not me. And certainly not here.
>
> - 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
> ------