[NA-Discuss] ICANN Geographic Regions

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hi Dharma,

> 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?
I have no objection at all to liberalizing the way through which ALSs
identify and group themselves. Below I describe some practises that
could be done immediately to help implement this.

However ... my main point is that all of this is a diversion from the
prime goal here, which is Internet policy. Even this email thread
constitutes a diversion from possible research on the RAA or other
relevant issues.

When I came into ALAC there was a major complaint that all its
discussions are about structure and so little about substance (policy
output). Danny's earlier comments about the ALAC's diminishing relevance
due to its silence on important issues was extremely well stated, and
far more worrisome to me than re-drawing regional boundaries. With that
in mind, and with an eye to NARALO/ALAC priorities and focus, issues of
"who goes where" just strike me as poor uses of our limited resources at
this time.

Look how few people on ALAC actually carry the weight of the group.
Given a choice between having them work on Internet policy or structure,
I choose policy. Both would be nice, but the reality is that we simply
don't have the luxury of ALAC working on all cylinders.

Now... If there is a *direct* cause/effect link between fixing regional
boundaries and making the current ALAC more effective at churning
policy, I want to hear it and would then support 100%. But I just don't
see that right now. Sorting out translation and multi-lingual
participation seems much more important, at least in the short term, as
a way to increase participation and effectiveness.

At an informal level -- right now, I personally would have no objection
to reps of other regions' ALSs coming to our meetings and subscribing to
our email list ... and I would hope the same courtesy could be extended
to ALSs in our region who would like to get involved elsewhere. But
that's a low-level procedural step -- we could even do it through a
modification of our MOU, if we really needed to formalize it -- and does
not require Board-level committee work.

> 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.
I agree and would take it a step beyond that. If there is an argument of
under-representation it should probably be voiced by those who feel they
are under-represented. In other words, NARALO might not be the best
region to bring this to ALAC, especially given that we have other
more-important things on our plate.

I think we need to pool our scarce resources effectively -- to 'pick our
battles', so to speak -- and that getting ALAC involved in the regional
distribution issue simply depletes its ability to do real Internet
policy work which is so badly lacking.

- Evan