Comment Close
Date
Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
 

Final Report Recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group

ADOPTED 11Y, 0N, 0A

Tijani Ben Jemaa

Assisted by: Jean-Jacques Subrenat

Narine Khachatryan

     AL-ALAC-ST-0416-02-00-EN

For information about this Public Comment, please click here 

 

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

Click here to download the PDF below. 

 



FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) appreciates the excellent work done by the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. The improvement this final report brings is appreciated.

The origin of the ICANN Geographic Regions was the need to ensure a geographic diversity within the ICANN Board. We strongly believe that the Geographic Regions review should address that very aspect to preserve and improve the geographic diversity in the ICANN Board composition.

The ALAC agrees that the general principle of geographic diversity is valuable and should be preserved and that its application must be more rigorous, clear and consistent. 

One aspect of the rigorousness, the clarity and the consistency should be to define one single criterion for the identification of a person’s region. Today, for the ICANN Board of Directors, it is a choice between citizenship (or origin) and residency. This non-rigorous approach may result in having a large number of the Board Directors residing and working for long time in the same region, thus having the same spirit and the same interests.  

The ALAC supports ICANN formally adopting and maintaining its own record of the assignment of countries and territories to ICANN’s Geographic Regions. 


Nevertheless, the ALAC does not think that it is appropriate to approach the adjustment of the number of the ICANN Geographic Regions from the side of organizational or financial consequences since the mission of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group is to find the best arrangement that may lead to more diversity as per the ICANN bylaws. The number of regions should not curb the improvement when necessary.

While we recognize that reducing the current number of the ICANN Geographic Regions is neither a desired nor a viable option, we find that adding new regions may address some of the concerns raised by parts of the community regarding their representation (the Arab and small islands communities for example).

However, the ALAC agrees for the time being to leave the structure “as is”, with countries and territories having the right to “opt in” for a change in Region if they so wish. The request should be initiated or supported by the local government of the relevant country or territory, taking into account the views of the local Internet community. 

We also agree that in the sake of avoiding any interference in the relationship between the dependent countries or territories and their “mother countries”, ICANN should give the opportunity to the dependent counties/territories to petition to move to a different ICANN Geographic Region. However, no territory re-assignment should be made if objections are raised by the Government of the “mother country”.

The ALAC believes that no country/territory should be able to seek reassignment more frequently than once every 5 years, using the same cycle of the ICANN Geographic Regions Review.
 

We do not believe that the reassignment to a region that is not geographically adjacent to the existing region should be restricted. For example if a dependent country/territory wishes to be reassigned to the region where it is physically situated but the region is not adjacent to the mother country’s one, we do not understand why this kind of reassignment is not permitted. 

The ALAC is in full support of recognizing and accommodating “Special Interest Groups” based on common specificities such as culture, language, etc., assuming that those “Special Interest Groups” do not replace the adopted geographic regions. 

As for the implementation mechanisms, and in order to ensure a smooth 5 year review and a high quality of the process by which re-assignments are considered, the ALAC suggests that ICANN set up an Ombudsman for Global Issues (OGI), assisted by a handful of experts from various parts of the community. This small group would receive requests from governments, associations, groups or individuals wishing to avail themselves of the “opt in” or “opt out” scheme being considered. This OGI would report to the Board, bringing to their attention specific cases and proposing solutions. This would not, or very marginally, impact the role of the existing Ombudsman.

Finally, the ALAC believes that the Board should have the ultimate oversight over the ICANN Geographic Regions’ framework including the 5 years review and reassignment process.

 


FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) appreciates the excellent work done by the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. The improvement this final report brings is appreciable. 

The origin of the ICANN Geographic regions was the need to ensure a geographic diversity inside the ICANN board. We strongly think that the Geographic Regions review should be addressed from that very side to preserve and improve the geographic diversity in the ICANN board composition.  

The ALAC agrees that the general principle of geographic diversity is valuable and should be preserved and that its application must be more rigorous, clear and consistent.

One aspect of the rigorousness, the clarity and the consistence should be to fix one single criterion of belonging to a region while it is now a choice between citizenship (or origin) and residency for the board population. This non rigorous, non clear and non consistent situation may lead to having most of the Board directors residing and working for long time in the same region, thus having the same spirit and the same interests.     

The ALAC supports ICANN formally adopting and maintaining its own record of the assignment of countries and territories to ICANN’s Geographic Regions 


Nevertheless, the At-Large Advisory Committee doesn’t think that approaching the adjustment of the number of the ICANN Geographic regions from the side of organizational or financial consequences is appropriate since the mission of the Geographic regions review WG is to find the best arrangement that may lead to a better diversity as per the ICANN bylaws. The number of regions shouldn’t curb the improvement when necessary.  

While we recognize that reducing the current number of the ICANN Geographic Regions is neither a desired nor a viable option, we find that adding new regions may resolve some of the concerns raised by parts of the community regarding their representation (Arab, small islands for example).

But for the time being, the ALAC agrees leaving the structure “as is”, with countries having the right to “opt in” for a change in Region if they so wish. The request being initiated or supported by the local government of the relevant country or territory and taking into account the views of the local Internet community. 

We also agree that in the sake of avoiding any interference in the relationship between the dependent countries or territories and their mother countries, ICANN should give the opportunity to the dependent counties/territories to petition to move to a new ICANN geographic region. However, no territory re-assignment should be made if objections are raised by the Government of the “mother country”. 
 

The ALAC believes that no country / territory should be able to seek reassignment more frequently than once every 5 years, using the same cycle of the ICANN Geographic Regions review. 
 

We do not believe that the reassignment to a region that is not geographically adjacent to the existing region should be restricted; for example if a dependent country / territory wishes to be reassigned to its original region, we don’t understand why this kind of reassignment is not permitted; The fact that the original region is not adjacent to the mother country one is not a valid reason for the restriction.

The ALAC is in full support of the recognition and accommodation of « Special Interest Groups » based on common specificities such as culture, language, etc., assuming that those « Special Interest Groups » don’t replace the adopted geographic regions. 

As for the implementation mechanisms, and in order to insure a smooth 5 year review and a good quality of the process by which re-assignments are considered, the At-Large Advisory Committee suggests that ICANN set up an "Ombudsman for global issues", assisted by a handful of experts from various parts of the community. This small group would receive requests from governments, associations, groups or individuals wishing to avail themselves of the opt-in or opt-out facility being considered. This special Ombudsman would report to the Board, bringing to their attention specific cases and proposing solutions. This would not impact the role of the existing Ombudsman, or very marginally.

Finally, the ALAC believes that Board should have ultimate oversight over the ICANN Geographic regions’ framework including the 5 years review and reassignment process.

  • No labels

16 Comments

  1. My views about ICANN's geographic regions have altered somewhat since my first contributions to the Geo-WG paper more than 5 years ago.  Despite the best intentions of the working party to draw lines in the sand to define which countries and territories would belong to which regional organisation, it was probably never going to be acceptable to all of the people all of the time.

    However, experience "on the job" has exemplified a famous NZ Maori saying "He aha te mea nui?  He tangata. He tangata. He tangata" (What is the most important thing? It is people. It is people. It is people.)  However regions have been defined, it is people who have decided whether the decision of the Geo-WG would work or not.

    I was very fortunate to be assigned to a region, which despite its high level of diversity of culture, language and skillsets, has been, IMHO, one of the most successful RALOs not only with regards to organisational management and compatibility of its leadership team but also for active engagement and participation by its members within At-Large.   Of course there is a core group of participants as for other RALOs but we hope to lead by example.

    At the time the original paper was produced, there was opposition to the model from affected RALO members. Their divergent views were raised by the ALAC in their 2011 statement.

    With respect to APRALO, these concerns were based on, for example:

    1. Small island states (globally) requesting a separate region
    2. Small European states preferring to maintain their close association with Europe rather than with Asia Pacific
    3. Arab states seeking a separate sub-region

    What evolved was that APRALO heeded a recommendation (#85) made by the Geo-WG to construct a leadership model from within the regional structure which would recognise and accommodate special interest groups and their concerns.

    As it happened, among those leaders selected by the region were those who had posed the original concerns. What has resulted is a strong cross-regional leadership team from Armenia, Cook Islands, Bahrain, India, Pakistan, Australia and now China, whose core strength comes not only from the diversity of their ethnicity, cultures, languages and skills but also in the collaborative way in which the team works to ensure diverse cross-regional inputs are included into regional decision-making.

    From the perspective of the current APRALO leadership and the way much of the region has been accepted, the current regional model works.

    **However, there are still some concerns in relation to the Pacific that need resolving.

     The Pacific is still a large under-served area within the Asia-Pacific region. We have one person working on stakeholder engagement in the Pacific, attempting to deal with the needs of individual nations all at different stages of internet development. Many still have connectivity and basic accessibility issues. Although Pacific governments are pushing for more internet use, this is not backed up by ensuring the use of IPV6 or DNSSEC, or governance policies to protect internet users, most of whom are new to the technology. Together, ICANN and ISOC should jointly focus their attention on the needs of these countries to facilitate development that is consistent with that given to  countries in land-locked areas. The issues experienced by Pacific countries are complicated on many islands because of cultural constraints, so that support and assistance with development is far more urgent and difficult. There is a real risk that some communities will be left far behind the rest of the world if their needs are not addressed now.

    ICANN treats small territories that dot the Pacific Ocean and which belong to large developed nations, differently from peoples from neighbouring self-governing countries. Because they are residents of territories belonging to the UK, France or USA, renders them ineligible for consideration for Fellowships etc where they may become more knowledgeable and involved in ICANN activities.  PICISOC which is an already established ALS has registered members on some of these islands, but even these applicants apparently do not qualify for reasons of residency of a territory. Surely, if they can prove membership of an already established ALS, then they should qualify to learn more about ICANN and to get more involved in APRALO. These small countries should be acknowledged as Pacific nations in their own right, as they are by the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), PICISOC and other regional leadership organisations.  The experience of ICANN coupled with their active involvement in PICISOC would add value to the social and economic development of their small island nations as well as heighten their engagement with At-Large.

    1. Maureen, two questions.

      1. I am not sure what you are suggesting in your last paragraph. The Geo-regions recommendations (if/when approved by the Board), if I understood it properly, ALLOWS the various island territories to move region if there is a consensus that they should do so. Are you supporting these options, or are you saying that the Recommendations should actually recommend the transfer of these territories. If the latter, what makes you think this is more acceptable now than as you say in your first paragraph "it was probably never going to be acceptable to all of the people all of the time"?

      2. My understanding is that ICANN is rethinking the eligibility requirements for Fellowships, but at the moment, you say that "Because they are residents of territories belonging to the UK, France or USA, renders them ineligible for consideration for Fellowships". What is your basis for saying that? https://www.icann.org/fellowshipprogram defines the ICANN Fellowship Program. American Samoa, and the Marshall Islands, for example, so seem to be eligible for the Fellowship.
      1. At the time that my paper was written followed discussions that some of the O&E team had about this issue. I have since seen the new fellowship program eligibility table and am pleased that now, SIDs participants won't feel excluded. But I will have to make sure that they know about it, because I didn't know it was there. Mea culpa!

        This was the main reason for island territories being seen to be excluded. I definitely do not want territorial wars to commence, but as long as the citizens of these countries have the same rights as others in the Pacific, I am fine with what is now the status quo. (smile)

        1. I may be wrong, but I think the SIDS list has been used for some time now, and both of my specific examples are eligible under the World Bank categories as well.

          To be clear, I am not trying to pick on you, but the incorrect statement of territories not being eligible because of theri "owner's" affluence has been with us for a while and seems impossible to kill.

          Alan

          1. I understand - but that's what I was told when I first came into ICANN - just 6 years ago when the Cook Islands wasn't on any list (because of our association with NZ) but I am glad to see that the ICANN lists are now more inclusive.. Janice did a lot of work to make these changes happen.

            As per Glenn's lists I think that people who are PICISOC members who live on American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Marianas, should be given an option to be able to join APRALO as individual members due to their living in the region - whatever country they belong to - rather than making a whole territory shift. PICISOC has an active email list which keeps members informed about ISOC and ICANN. Tracy from Trinidad &Tobago is a member and often puts up ICANN snippets. An ex- PICISOC Board member was from American Samoa a few years back and he's still active on our list. APRALO just seems to be a much more natural region for him to connect with.

  2. We have a geo-political situation in ALAC where  some  RALO`s  have territories that are out of  region and scope to manage them properly

    LACRALO  AREA

    Nine  island in the West Indies are under  EURALO

    • Aruba, 
    • Cayman Islands
    • Curacao,
    • Guadeloupe
    • French Guiana, 
    • Martinique,
    • Montserrat,
    • British Virgin Islands
    • Turks and Cacios, 
    These islands are considered by ICANN to be part of the European region and not part of the LAC region as defined by ICANN. 
    NARALO AREA
    America Samoa, (APRALO)
    Guam
    My suggestion the following 
    1. Relocate US Virgin Islands currently under  LACRALO move to NARALO 
    2. Relocate the following group from NARALO to APRALO( largest of the fifteen islands)
      America Samoa
      Guam
           3.Relocate  the  following groups from EURALO to LACRALO 
    • Aruba, 
    • Cayman Islands
    • Curacao,
    • Guadeloupe
    • French Guiana, 
    • Martinique,
    • Montserrat,
    • British Virgin Islands
    • Turks and Cacios, 
    These  changes will better be served by the local  RALO`s for  promotion, recruitment and participation 
    1. Glenn, to be clear, are you suggesting that these transfers be done unilaterally by ICANN, or that they be allowed IF the territory desires it?

      Alan

  3. Jean Jacques   6/1/2016   11:58

     I'm happy to be working with you on this topic. Here are my initial observations...

    ... ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINAL REPORT

     -        Recommendation F

    claims that "The Community wants to minimize any changes to the current structure". This claim can be questioned, as those already benefiting from the current structures (some domain name businesses, some sovereign states, some individuals in ICANN structures) obviously have an interest in maintaining the current structure. This conservatism does not take sufficiently into account some trends in the wider context of the constantly evolving Internet (see below).

     -        Recommendation G

    states that "ICANN Must Acknowledge The Sovereignty And Right of Self-Determination of States To Let Them Choose Their Region of Allocation", and this is irrefutable as a general principle. However, the evolution of the Internet is shaping along other lines as well: the Internet user has access to sites and content from outside her/his region, with aspirations that may not be restricted to the language, culture, beliefs of her/his region. Because of these meta-trends, Recommendation G, while recognizing the right to self-determination of States, should also provide corrective measures for groups or individuals subjected to censorship or other limitation of rights. In short, what I am proposing is not to challenge the right to self-determination of sovereign states, but to add corrective measures made necessary by the ever-wider uses of the Internet and ever-greater diversity of its users.

     -        Recommendation H

    suggests maintaining a strict "geographic regions" criterion in populating the Board, and flexibility in other ICANN structures. It's high time that countries such as Narine's be invited to choose their place in European structures, and not perpetuate the fiction that it is part of Asia and the Pacific. Regarding the Board, see my remark below about the formative years of ICANN and today.

     -        Recommendation I

    mentions briefly the idea of forming of "special interest groups" and/or "cross-regional sub-groups". I think this is an interesting overture, which ALAC (especially ALAC!) should help define and implement.

    ... ON THE WIDER CONTEXT OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET

     - The issues raised by the WG, and the ensuing Recommendations, need to be placed in the wider context of trends affecting the global Internet: an ever-greater number of Internet users require global answers to global questions (health, access to clean air and water, enhancing the place of women and children, education against ignorance and obscurantism, security based on mutual trust...). For almost every Internet user, the pattern has been and is still the same: the Internet first helps understand your immediate surroundings and community, and gradually allows you to grasp the wider reality, the local implications of larger events.

     - The Internet is affected by these large trends, but at the same time these trends are enabled and amplified by the Internet, which I have consistently called "the first truly global infrastructure in the history of human development". It is therefore crucial that communities within ICANN play an active part in adapting current structures and processes to these challenges. In a previous iteration of ALAC's response on Geographic Names, Tijani very aptly argued that the current debate in the WG is geographic, but that maybe "diversity" would be a wider and more accurate way of dealing with the rather limited notion of "geographic regions".

     - We cannot ignore that, in the formative years of ICANN, and for perfectly understandable historic reasons, its leadership included a high proportion of North Americans, with strong support from other English-speaking countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand (which, by the way, are the members of the "Five Eyes" arrangement also including Canada). A student and practitioner of international relations cannot fail to remark that the initial definition of the Asia & Pacific Region in ICANN gave some advantage to Australians and New-Zealanders, "natural allies" of the US and the UK, thus diluting the possible influence of countries, many of them much more populated, in Asia. Much more recently, when the ICG was formed, it emerged that out of its 30 members, 11 are citizens of one country (and that does not include those who may have dual nationality and preferred not to declare their US citizenship). Now, as we are well into the 21st century, it is not illegitimate to call for greater diversity.

     -        Finally, as a former member of the Board and former member of ALAC, I suggest that ALAC propose that ICANN set up an "Ombudsman for global issues", assisted by a handful of experts from various parts of the community. This small group would receive requests from associations, groups or individuals wishing to avail themselves of the opt-in or opt-out facility being considered. This special Ombudsman would report to the Board, bringing to their attention specific cases and proposing solutions. And this would not impact the role of the existing Ombudsman, or very marginally.

     

    Alejandro   5/1/2016     9:21 GMT

     Je me réfère au document envoyé à l'emploi des régions de l'ICANN.

     Particulièrement problématique point de rencontre pas. 7, qui indique que les gouvernements vont déterminer la région que leurs pays appartiennent.

     Ceci est contraire à la "mulstistakeholder« principe et l'histoire de l'ICANN. Beaucoup de communautés nationales sont dans les régions auxquelles ils appartiennent par une décision des différentes «parties prenantes», prises dans de nombreux cas, lorsque le gouvernement de son pays n'a prêté aucune attention aux processus de l'ICANN. Des cas comme celui du Mexique, pour lesquels les chances d'être considérés comme faisant partie de la communauté américaine ou latino-américaine latine ont surgi étaient bien résolus.

     Aujourd'hui, nous avons l'occasion d'examiner la LACRALO d'adhésion d'autres communautés nationales ou régionales sont à explorer leur identité culturelle, la langue et la tradition juridique en Amérique du Nord. Peut-être qu'ils sont en conformité avec la décision de laisser entre les mains de leurs gouvernements. Ce ne sont pas garanties et devraient bientôt connaître.

     Je propose que LACRALO va se retourner contre ce point sous sa forme actuelle et la place d'abord établir multiples qui exige au moins un ouvert et transparent pour tous les secteurs de la consultation publique, suivant la façon dont nous procédons en cas de redélégation ccTLD.

     Qu'est-ce que les autres pensent?

     

     Roberto   5/1/2016   23:11

     A warning: this is a big can of worms – which does not mean that we should not open it, just be aware that it is not that simple.

     The point 7. that Alx points out does not apply only to Mexico - incidentally, “ser considerado parte de la comunidad latinoamericana o de la latinoamericana” translates to me “to be considered part of either the Latin American or the Latin American community” J which looks to me pretty much like a Freudian slip J

    We have similar cases in Europe vs. Asia-Pacific, for instance the South Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan).

     But if we require that the decision is not going to be taken only by Governments, but by the local multi-stakeholder communities, another issue that comes to my mind is the French DOM-TOM cases, where places like Guadeloupe, Martinique, etc. have been moved years ago into Europe, although they are really somewhere else… And this applies also to other cases, so not a piece of cake, actually, and an issue where we will be likely to touch some of the fundamental issues about who decides what – the heart of the multi-stakeholder model, as well as the heart of the issue about empowering the local communities.

     

     Carlton   6/1/2016   16:49

     I am claiming privilege here only so far as I was a member and full participant - teamed with Cheryl Langdon Orr - of the WG.

     While I know Tijani and Maureen would appreciate the nuances of the report produced by this CC-chartered WG, some others coming late to the conversation - or, just taking notice of this the work - might run off on a frolic. 

     So here's a link to the 2011 Interim Report  - yes, 5 years ago! - statements from the several RALOs. 

     https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+Interim+Report+of+Geographic+Regions+WG+AL-ALAC-ST-0111-2

     The Caribbean ALSs statement was drafted by the member [then] of TTCS - and now ISOC TT - Cintra Sooknanan. Recent developments have underscored the Caribbean perspective. 

     Let the record show The UWI ALS is yet resolved to emphatically support the views expressed in that Caribbean ALSes statement.

     

     Alejandro   6/1/2016   17:35

     Carlton,

     this is a fantastic reminder and a good springboard for discussions that are forward-looking.

     It would be desirable to see this contribution reflected in the regional list as well.

     There is an exception to the statement: the subregion holds half the votes, and therefore at least the swing vote in any election of officers or vote on motions.

     The path forward option no. 2 may have finally found its ripe time. Our efforts to build commonality may have reached their shelf life. Let's make sure all voices can be heard.

     Now to the point I have raised on no. 7 of the new report, governments alone can decide the region they submit to belong to. Would that work for the Caribbean or would we support you more by emphasizing the need for multistakeholder consultation?

     The result for the case of so many countries and territorial entities may further help shape the statement that Tijani and Jean-Jacques have offered to spearhead drafting.

     

     ALAN    6/1/2016   18:27

     strongly support regional input into this process and am glad it is materializing.

     Although the recommendation reads "ICANN must acknowledge the sovereignty and right of self-determination of states to let them choose their region of allocation.", the associated text does talk about a more egalitarian approach. The Executive Summary reads "However, Staff should also develop and implement a process to permit stakeholder communities in countries or territories to pursue, if they wish, re-assignment to a geographic region that they consider to be more appropriate for their jurisdiction." So I think that supports what Alejandro is talking about.

     It will be interesting to see how this process will evolve. Without the seminal RFC that guides the ccTLD delegation process, it may be challenging to over-ride a government's wishes (and clearly the regional allocation for the GAC is part of such a decision) if it does differ from that of the local Internet community.

     

     Vanda    6/1/2016   19:53

     Roberto,

     May be it is time to touch the hart of the multistakeholder  model.  

    Kind regards

     

     

     

     

    1. My views about ICANN's geographic regions have altered somewhat since my first contributions to the Geo-WG paper more than 5 years ago.  Despite the best intentions of the working party to draw lines in the sand to define which countries and territories would belong to which regional organisation, it was probably never going to be acceptable to all of the people all of the time.

      However, experience "on the job" has exemplified a famous NZ Maori saying "He aha te mea nui?  He tangata. He tangata. He tangata" (What is the most important thing? It is people. It is people. It is people.)  However regions have been defined, it is people who have decided whether the decision of the Geo-WG would work or not.

      I was very fortunate to be assigned to a region, which despite its high level of diversity of culture, language and skillsets, has been, IMHO, one of the most successful RALOs not only with regards to organisational management and compatibility of its leadership team but also for active engagement and participation by its members within At-Large.   Of course there is a core group of participants as for other RALOs but we hope to lead by example.

      At the time the original paper was produced, there was opposition to the model from affected RALO members. Their divergent views were raised by the ALAC in their 2011 statement.

      With respect to APRALO, these concerns were based on, for example:

      1. Small island states (globally) requesting a separate region
      2. Small European states preferring to maintain their close association with Europe rather than with Asia Pacific
      3. Arab states seeking a separate sub-region

      What evolved was that APRALO heeded a recommendation (#85) made by the Geo-WG to construct a leadership model from within the regional structure which would recognise and accommodate special interest groups and their concerns.

      As it happened, among those leaders selected by the region were those who had posed the original concerns. What has resulted is a strong cross-regional leadership team from Armenia, Cook Islands, Bahrain, India, Pakistan, Australia and now China, whose core strength comes not only from the diversity of their ethnicity, cultures, languages and skills but also in the collaborative way in which the team works to ensure diverse cross-regional inputs are included into regional decision-making.

      From the perspective of the current APRALO leadership and the way much of the region has been accepted, the current regional model works.

      **However, there are still some concerns in relation to the Pacific that need resolving.

       The Pacific is still a large under-served area within the Asia-Pacific region. We have one person working on stakeholder engagement in the Pacific, attempting to deal with the needs of individual nations all at different stages of internet development. Many still have connectivity and basic accessibility issues. Although Pacific governments are pushing for more internet use, this is not backed up by ensuring the use of IPV6 or DNSSEC, or governance policies to protect internet users, most of whom are new to the technology. Together, ICANN and ISOC should jointly focus their attention on the needs of these countries to facilitate development that is consistent with that given to  countries in land-locked areas. The issues experienced by Pacific countries are complicated on many islands because of cultural constraints, so that support and assistance with development is far more urgent and difficult. There is a real risk that some communities will be left far behind the rest of the world if their needs are not addressed now.

      ICANN treats small territories that dot the Pacific Ocean and which belong to large developed nations, differently from peoples from neighbouring self-governing countries. Because they are residents of territories belonging to the UK, France or USA, renders them ineligible for consideration for Fellowships etc where they may become more knowledgeable and involved in ICANN activities.  PICISOC which is an already established ALS has registered members on some of these islands, but even these applicants apparently do not qualify for reasons of residency of a territory. Surely, if they can prove membership of an already established ALS, then they should qualify to learn more about ICANN and to get more involved in APRALO. These small countries should be acknowledged as Pacific nations in their own right, as they are by the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), PICISOC and other regional leadership organisations.  The experience of ICANN coupled with their active involvement in PICISOC would add value to the social and economic development of their small island nations as well as heighten their engagement with At-Large.

    2. We have a geo-political situation in ALAC where  some  RALO`s  have territories that are out of  region and scope to manage them properly

      LACRALO  AREA

      Nine  island in the West Indies are under  EURALO

      • Aruba, 
      • Cayman Islands
      • Curacao,
      • Guadeloupe
      • French Guiana, 
      • Martinique,
      • Montserrat,
      • British Virgin Islands
      • Turks and Cacios, 
      These islands are considered by ICANN to be part of the European region and not part of the LAC region as defined by ICANN. 
      NARALO AREA
      America Samoa, (APRALO)
      Guam
      My suggestion the following 
      1. Relocate US Virgin Islands currently under  LACRALO move to NARALO 
      2. Relocate the following group from NARALO to APRALO( largest of the fifteen islands)
        America Samoa
        Guam
             3.Relocate  the  following groups from EURALO to LACRALO 
      • Aruba, 
      • Cayman Islands
      • Curacao,
      • Guadeloupe
      • French Guiana, 
      • Martinique,
      • Montserrat,
      • British Virgin Islands
      • Turks and Cacios, 
      These  changes will better be served by the local  RALO`s for  promotion, recruitment and participation 
  4. I know that this is late, but I had hoped that someone else might have chipped in at some time about the small island developing states - there were quite a few of us in that camp when the review was being undertaken. I agree with Jean Jacques that the opportunity for special interest groups should still be an option (without requiring any reorganisation of regions) that could also perhaps help to solve the issue of small island territories in the Pacific, and our common concerns which are not so relevant to land-locked or developed countries. 

    This issue probably addresses the review much more relevantly than my original comment, which was related to the fact that, because of the complexities that arise out of any regional review, we ultimately get what we are given and we make the most of it. But everyone has to work cooperatively within the system to make it work. It worked for the Asian, Australasian and Pacific Islands region. 

  5. Cuando hablamos de un país, nos referimos al territorio que forma una unidad geográfica o política, limitada de manera natural o artificial. Al mencionar la palabra nación, pensamos en la comunidad de personas que forman parte de un país, dirigida generalmente por el mismo gobierno. Esta comunidad también suele estar unida por lazos étnicos o de historia: la nación es una comunidad, junto con el territorio y todo lo que pertenece a él. La idea de nación puede hacerse extensiva a un grupo disperso que, a pesar de hallarse en distintas regiones geopolíticas, mantiene comunidad de usos y tradiciones: tal como es el caso de los gitanos o los palestinos. El término patria puede aplicarse como sinónimo. La Palabra Estado es más formal y tiene sentido político, pues aplica para describir una nación o territorio con su conjunto de órganos gubernamentales y legislativos, reconocidos de forma unánime por sus ciudadanos.

    Debemos recordar que este informe dice basarse en la ISO 3166 cuya lista corresponde a  países, territorios o áreas de interés geográfico.

    40.g. Libre determinación de los estados para elegir región

    En el caso de este artículo, no especifica que sucede si alguna de  las múltiples partes interesadas de una región, desea elegir otra región diferente. Si el estado no desea cambiar de región, nadie más puede hacerlo? Por ejemplo, una cámara que nuclea los ISPs de un país, o una ALS de una RALO determinada.

    En el 57.c. y 61.c. se habla de "madre patria".

    Concepto de madre patria: El término madre patria se emplea para designar una nación «madre» con la cual un grupo de individuos está relacionado, sea dicha nación su lugar de nacimiento o el origen étnico de un grupo inmigrante.   En la actualidad, su uso se encuentra mayormente circunscrito a los campos de la historia, la sociología y las ciencias políticas. Es decir, no existe ningún lazo obligatorio entre un país y su madre patria. Prácticamente todo latinomáerica tiene como madre patria a España. Creo que están tratando de referirse a Colonias, o como son considerados por Naciones Unidas,"Territorios No Autónomos" cuya lista hasta el 2013 es:

    TerritorioIncluídos en la listaAdministraciónSuperficie
    (km2)
     1
    Población 1
    ÁFRICA
    Sáhara Occidental Documento PDF en inglésDesde 19632266,000586,000
    ATLÁNTICO Y EL CARIBE
    Anguila Documento PDF en inglésDesde 1946Reino Unido9615,700
    Bermuda Documento PDF en inglésDesde 1946Reino Unido53.3561,777
    Islas Caimán Documento PDF en inglésDesde 1946Reino Unido26455,691
    Islas Malvinas
    (Falkland)
     Documento PDF en inglés 3
    Desde 1946Reino Unido12,1732,500
    Islas Turcas y
    Caicos
     Documento PDF en inglés
    Desde 1946Reino Unido948.231,458
    Islas Vírgenes
    Británicas
     Documento PDF en inglés
    Desde 1946Reino Unido15328,200
    Islas Vírgenes de los
    Estados Unidos
     Documento PDF en inglés
    Desde 1946Estados Unidos352107,343
    Monserrat Documento PDF en inglésDesde 1946Reino Unido1035,000
    Santa Elena Documento PDF en inglésDesde 1946Reino Unido3105,777
    EUROPA
    Gibraltar Documento PDF en inglésDesde 1946Reino Unido5.832,700
    PACÍFICO
    Guam Documento PDF en inglésDesde 1946Estados Unidos540159,358
    Nueva Caledonia Documento PDF en inglés1946-1947 y desde 1986Francia18,575268,767
    Pitcairn Documento PDF en inglésDesde 1946Reino Unido35.537
    Polinesia Francesa Documento PDF en inglés1946-1947 y desde 2013Francia3,600268,207
    Samoa Americana Documento PDF en inglésDesde 1946Estados Unidos20055,170
    Tokelau Documento PDF en inglésDesde 1946Nueva Zelandia12.21,411

    Y creo que aquí sí, hay que discutir. Por ejemplo, el haber permitido el .fk (Islas Malvinas para Argentina, Falklan para Inglaterra), no es haber reconocido la soberanía a una de las partes, cuando se está aún en litigio? Que sucede con los otros territorios no autónomos que están en litigio?

    63. Paises o territorios pueden solicitar reasignación: contar con apoyo del  gobierno y la comunidad local de internet ??? Nuevamente hay indefinición: Si un país quiere cambiar, significa que su gobierno lo ha decidido. Y quienes conforman la comunidad local de internet? La comunidad de internet está citada varias veces en el documento, pero no están definidos sus componentes en ningún lado.

    67. Es totalmente confuso: las SO y AC pueden o no hacer uso  del marco regional?

    77. Una unica SO o AC podría estar en otra región geográfica sin modificar el esquema de RG de ICANN, pero no está indicada cual es la cantidad mínima.

  6. This statement is a perfect example of a political pas de deux...and an attempt to have our cake while at the same time insist we cut our calories:

    "We also agree that in the sake of avoiding any interference in the relationship between the dependent countries or territories and their mother countries, ICANN should give the opportunity to the dependent counties/territories to petition to move to a new ICANN geographic region. However, no territory re-assignment should be made if objections are raised by the Government of the “mother country”. 
 

    Its the results that matter. As it is now, the 'mother country' - 'colonial power' would be better since that reeks of paternalism - decides. Nothing we say in that paragraph makes for a change.

    We could junk it without a trace and still be good.

  7. Although no longer a member of the ALAC, I wish to make known my objection to the use of "mother-country" in any part of the document. I am aware that the term was used by the Geographic Regions Review Working Group, and was not proposed by the ALAC.

    My objection is thus motivated: the notion of "mother-country" could be used by some state as justification to challenge the self-determination already achieved in fact by another state or region. Human history is full of tragedies fueled, or condoned, by the ideology of a "mother- (or father-) country". And if "fatherland" has more unfortunate connotations from the twentieth century than "mother-country", the latter could provide justification to one state wanting to curtail the rights of another collective entity: say a democracy in one of the largest geographic regions in the ICANN list is claimed by another state as its own territory: resorting to "mother-country" as a criterion could diminish the rights of that democracy.

    Jean-Jacques.

  8. I agree Jean-Jacques! Regards

  9. Further to my previous comment, I offer the following as a possible replacement for the term "mother country".

    In the final draft of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group, the expression "mother country" is used in the following instances:

    - F, "ICANN must adopt and maintain its own unique geographic regions framework", under item 57 c,

    - G, "ICNN must acknowledge the sovereignty and right of self-determination of states to let them choose their region of allocation", under items 61 and 62.

    Considering that the term "mother country" has some connotations (e.g. colonialism, forceful appropriation, annexation), and that its use could foster future territorial or other disputes, the ALAC suggests that it be replaced, throughout the draft, by a more neutral expression such as "country or entity with which it/they was/were related".

    Finally, so as to avoid political, territorial or linguistic disputes from spilling over into the processes of ICANN, it is suggested that all "countries", "territories" or "regions" be referred to as "states or other collective entities". This would obviate the need for ICANN to use any term which, in the political sphere, may give rise to disputes.

    Jean-Jacques.

     

    1. Jean-Jacques,

      It may be true that the language in the report, and which has been there for many years needs to be adjusted, but given that we have been debating this rather contentious issue for some time now, and the statement is open to a vote, I think it is too late for the ALAC to do anything. If there is a groundswell of support in the ALAC. I could suspend the vote, but that implies that the ALAC will not submit anything, and I suspect that is not the best way forward. Or perhaps there will be a large number of abstentions or No votes - with the same end result.

      However, I think it would be 100% appropriate for you to make these comments to the open Public Comment (PC), to advertise them (perhaps via the open At-Large list and/or the RALO lists), and to suggest that others who support your position make comments to the PC saying so.

      Alan