Click here to download the ALAC Statement on the Geographic Regions Review in PDF format
Comment Period |
Important Information Links |
Open Date: |
30 September 2011 |
Close Date: |
19 December 2011 |
Time (UTC): |
23:59 |
Originating Organization: |
Community-Wide Geographic Regions Review Working Group |
Purpose: |
For the past two years a community-wide working group chartered by the ICANN Board has been working to (1) confirm the history, underlying principles and goals of the current geographic regions framework, (2) analyze how those goals and principles have been applied by the Board, Staff and community and (3) consulted with the community on how those principles and goals can be best maintained in the future. |
Current Status: |
The Working Group has reached a consensus on its recommendations, but given the extensive consultative nature of this effort and mindful of the potential implications even small changes to the framework could have on the wider community, the WG decided to make this draft document available to the community for review and comment before the WG formally publishes its Final Report. |
Next Steps: |
The Working Group will closely review all comments submitted in this proceeding and will determine whether to modify the recommendations in the Final Report. The Working expects to formally publish its Final Report early next year. At that time the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be asked to formally comment on the recommendations in the Final Report. |
Staff Contact: |
Robert Hoggarth |
Email: |
Copies of the Draft Final Report in all six UN languages can be found at the following links:
- العربية [PDF, 325 KB
- 中文 [PDF, 358 KB]
- English [PDF, 252 KB]
- Français [PDF, 324 KB]
- Русский [PDF, 388 KB]
- Español [PDF, 390 KB]
- Appendix A (EN) [PDF, 112 KB]
- Appendix B (EN) [PDF, 81 KB]
Introduction
This text has been taken from the Geographic Regions Review – Draft Final Report Public Comments Page
------
Geographic diversity is a fundamental component of the ICANN organization. The ICANN Bylaws (Article VI Section 5) currently define five geographic regions as Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe.
The ICANN Geographic Regions were originally created to ensure regional diversity in the composition of the ICANN Board and were subsequently expanded in various ways to apply to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO).
For the past two years a community-wide working group chartered by the ICANN Board has been working to (1) confirm the history, underlying principles and goals of the current geographic regions framework, (2) analyze how those goals and principles have been applied by the Board, Staff and community and (3) consult with the community on how those principles and goals can be best maintained in the future.
This Draft Final Report reflects the penultimate step of that research and consultation effort. The draft document outlines specific recommendations from the Working Group to the ICANN Board regarding how the present Geographic Regions Framework can be modified to ensure that the organizational principles of geographic and cultural diversity are honored and maintained. Those recommendations are based on thorough research, extensive community consultation and reflect the points of view of a wide range of the ICANN community.
Mindful of the potential implications even small changes to the framework could have on the wider community, the WG decided to make this draft document available to the community for review and comment before the WG formally publishes its Final Report. The WG will closely review all submitted comments to determine if further modifications to the draft document are necessary.
This text has been taken from the Geographic Regions Review – Draft Final Report Public Comments Page
------
Historical Background Information
The ccNSO Council approved a resolution in 2007 recommending that the ICANN Board appoint a community-wide working group to further study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, to consult with all stakeholders and submit proposals to the Board to resolve the issues relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions.
The rest of the community supported the concept of the working group and the Board authorized its formation at its December 2008 Meeting (see - http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-07nov08.htm#_Toc87682556).
The Board approved the charter of the working group at its public meeting in June 2009 (see -http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#1.2). Copies of the Charter, in all six UN languages, are set forth here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/geographic-regions/charter-26jun09-en.htm.
The Working Group produced two previous reports, including an Initial Report in which the Working Group (1) identified the various applications and functions to which “ICANN Geographic Regions” are currently applied by existing ICANN structures; (2) documented other regionally identified processes and structures used within ICANN but not defined in the Bylaws; and (3) detailed the “issues” that it thought should be covered during its subsequent investigations.
The Working Group also produced an Interim Report that focused on general principles, specific considerations and some of the critical issues that it intended to address in its Final Report document. It (1) offered a review of the underlying history, objectives and general principles of ICANN’s Geographic Regions Framework; (2) raised a number of fundamental strategic questions for further community consideration; and (3) expanded on a number of specific issues identified in the Initial Report that were likely to be addressed in the Final Report.
Draft ALAC Statement on the Geographic Regions Review (First Draft)
Click here to download a PDF for the statement below
The ICANN Geographic Regions review is of great importance for At-Large because all its organization and its work are based on the 5 ICANN regions (composition of ALAC, distribution of RALOs, allocation of ALSes, etc.).
That is why since the Working Group initial report, ALAC expressed its great interest in always considering the main reason of the introduction of the geographic regions concept in ICANN, which was to ensure geographical diversity in the Board composition.
Also, ALAC strongly believes that we should always seek and support broad and informed participation reflecting the geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity at all levels of policy development and decision making in ICANN as stated in the ICANN Bylaws.
So, ALAC thinks that any geographic regions review should aim at enhancing the so called diversity for a better international representation.
It is because any Geographic regions framework is made for a specific purpose that there is no international standard one: ITU uses several frameworks according to the nature of the structure that will use it (for example, ITU Radio-communication has a specific geographic regions system that is used for the frequency (and orbital position) allocation, which is different from the one used for the ITU council for the country representation).
That’s said, ALAC finds that the proposed review does not enhance the diversity and wouldn’t ensure more international representation.
The RIRs model was built on technical considerations having nothing to do with the diversity. It couldn’t be the right model for ICANN. If the actual framework is not perfect, the one proposed is not better for the following reasons:
- It doesn’t satisfy the request for which the review was initiated.
- It removes countries from their original regions to which they belong to a different region, far from their lands, with very different language and culture, and a far different level of Internet penetration (Example: Yemen from Asia to Europe)
- The Asian Arab countries, Iran and Turkey will have almost no chance since they will be competing with prestigious European countries with very high level competences.
- It creates political tensions since it removes the Islas Malvinas (Falkland island) from Europe to Latin America and Caribbean region.
The draft final report says that the current framework has created a large number of anomalies without detailing or even mentioning them. We do believe that the proposed one would create more and worse problems at the representation level, as well as at the political one. It will not fulfill the main requirement of diversity for which the geographic regions were created in ICANN.
ALAC would advise that:
- the current geographic regions framework be maintained
- any country should be allowed to request for a change from its current region
- the request for change should bring le country to a region closer to its land
Finally, we can conclude that the review will be a positive one if it reinforces the objective for which the geographic regions were implemented in ICANN. It is clear that the proposal of the working group final report doesn’t bring a better diversity, and thus failed in achieving its goal. ALAC thinks that it is of extreme importance that the review of the geographic regions be done for the benefit of a good international representation, taking into account the interest of all parties.
Draft ALAC Statement on the Geographic Regions Review (Second Draft including comments)
Abstract
This Statement of the ALAC makes the following recommendations:
- Do not follow the recommendation of the ICANN Geographical Regions Review Working Group Final Report to follow the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) model
- The current geographic regions framework be maintained;
- In a purely bottom-up fashion, any country should be allowed to request for a change from its current region;
- A formal process should be put in place for a country to request this change;
- A limited period of time should be given to allow a country to submit its change request;
- No country may seek reassignment more frequently than once every 10 years.
Keywords: Geographic Regions; United Nations; Regional Internet Registry; ALAC; Regional At-Large Organization; RALO.
Introduction
The ICANN Geographic Regions review is of great importance for At-Large because its worldwide structure, organization and its work are based on the five (5) ICANN regions (composition of ALAC, distribution of Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs), allocation of At-Large Structures (ALSes), selection of Nominating Committee delegates, etc.).
As a result, since the Working Group’s initial report, the ALAC expressed its great interest in always considering the primary reason for the introduction of the geographic regions concept in ICANN: to ensure geographical diversity in the Board composition.
Main Statement
The ALAC strongly believes that it should always seek and support broad and informed participation reflecting the geographic, cultural and linguistic diversity at all levels of policy development and decision making in ICANN as stated in the ICANN Bylaws.
The ALAC therefore emphasizes that any geographical regions review should aim at enhancing diversity for a better international representation.
It is because any Geographical Regions Framework is designed for a specific purpose on a case by case basis, that no single international standard exists. The International Telecommunications union (ITU) uses several frameworks according to the nature of the structure that will use it. For example, the ITU Radio-communication has a specific geographic regions system that is used for the frequency (and orbital satellite position) allocation, which is different from the one used by the ITU council for the country representation.
The current ICANN model is based on the United Nations classification of countries and territories, from a document entitled “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings”, referenced in the ICANN Geographical Regions final report. The responsibility of a territory being part of a region or another, lies therefore firmly in the United Nations document. This safeguards ICANN from needing to provide further evidence and be involved politically as to its choice of region for a specific country or territory, a safety mechanism that the ALAC has already had to exercise on several occasions.
The Working Group’s main proposal suggests aligning the regions to the RIR model. The ALAC finds that the proposed review does not enhance diversity and would not ensure more international representation than the current model.
The RIRs model was built on technical considerations having nothing to do with the diversity. It cannot be the right model for ICANN. If the actual framework is not perfect, the one proposed is worse for the following reasons:
- It does not satisfy the request for which the review was initiated;
- It removes countries from their original regions to which they belong, to a different region, far from their lands, with very different language and culture, and a far different level of Internet penetration (Example: Yemen from Asia to Europe).
- The document makes use of the term “mother countries”, a term that can be seen as offensive by some countries and appear to support colonialist ideals.
- By proposing a new geographical region framework along specific lines, in this case, moving to the RIR model, ICANN would be taking full responsibility over Geographical Region Divide. This would open ICANN to taking the responsibility of deciding matters of sovereignty, international law & diplomacy, including taking sides in unresolved conflicts such as the one between Argentina and the United Kingdom about the Islas Malvinas “Falkland Islands” (See Appendix A)
The draft final report asserts that the current framework has created a large number of anomalies without detailing or even mentioning them. We believe that the proposed framework would create more problems at the representation level, as well as at the political level and will take responsibility for these anomalies. It will not fulfill the main requirement of diversity for which the geographic regions were created in ICANN.
The ALAC would therefore advise that:
- The current geographic regions framework be maintained;
- In a purely bottom-up fashion, any country should be allowed to request for a change from its current region;
- A formal process should be put in place for a country to request this change;
- A limited period of time should be given to allow a country to submit its change request;
- No country may seek reassignment more frequently than once every 10 years.
Some of these recommendations are actually contained in some sections of the Geographic Regions Framework report.
It is the ALAC’s understanding that some countries might wish to request a change from one region to another due to language, culture or ethnicity. Rather than ICANN imposing such judgment, the ALAC suggests to let the country choose.
The ALAC is aware that challenges for such choice are different in each part of the world. In some cases, it might be a clear cut scenario, whilst in others, the situation is more complex. For example, the ALAC recognizes that in the case of the Caribbean Islands region, letting countries choose whether they wish to switch region might risk leading to dividing the special and unique identity of the Caribbean into two regions.
The system by which a country may ask for reassignment is yet to be designed and we believe that the method would require further study, bearing into account Sovereignty and Self-determination of States. The ALAC suggests that the GAC might wish to contribute to this discussion.
Conclusion
The review will only be successful if it reinforces the objective for which the geographic regions were implemented in ICANN. It is clear that the proposal of the Geographical Regions working group final report does not bring a better diversity, and thus failed in achieving its goal. The ALAC thinks that it is of extreme importance that the review of the geographic regions be done for the benefit of a good international representation, taking into account the interests of all parties. The ALAC has kept this as its main goal in making its recommendations.
Appendix A: unresolved conflicts
The Falklands/Malvinas War and its status quo is a classic example of a diplomatic disagreement that spans much more than the scope of ICANN.
While relations between Argentina and the UK were restored in 1989, the islands' sovereignty remains aside as a mutual understanding.
For the sake of example, and making no judgment as to its pertinence or accuracy, we include an example of a comment, transcribed verbatim, received from a contributor living in the region covered by LACRALO. The level of diplomatic detail is such that other members from the region oppose this, and we hope this illustrates the complexity of a situation which ICANN should not pertain to have an answer to.
Item 50 . “the request should be initiated or supported by the local government of the relevant country or territory.”
For LAC, natives of the Malvinas (Falklands) islands are Argentine citizens living full indivisible part of the national territory is illegally occupied by an invading power, therefore can’t be applied the principle of self, but to be applied the principle of integrity territorial state. The sixth paragraph of resolution 1514 (XV) of the UN General Assembly, enacted on December 14, 1960, states that "any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption [...] the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. "
Then, in resolution 2353 (XXII) of January 8, 1968, the Assembly reaffirmed that "any colonial situation which totally or partially destroyed [...] the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter."
This will only have two parties to the dispute over sovereignty, Argentina and the United Kingdom.
Argentina believes that Resolution 2065 (XX) urged to resolve the dispute through negotiations, taking into account the "interests" rather than "wishes" of the islanders. Argentina considers that is not recognized right to self when referring to the "interests" of the inhabitants of the Malvinas (Falkland Island) and is recommended to be "taken into account" by the two countries dispute the sovereignty.
This scenario can be applied to other territories under dispute or under colonial jurisdiction.
Item 76 - I have to say as I stated in item 50 in the case of Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960, the UN General Assembly, self-determination is the free expression of "the will and desire" of the inhabitants of a territory without self-government. Argentina and all the countries that make up Community of Latin American and Caribbean, CELAC (http://tinyurl.com/6rdbq4p) believe that is not recognized right to self when referring to the "interests" of the inhabitants the Falkland Islands and is recommended to be "taken into account" by the two countries dispute the sovereignty. Therefore it is necessary to revise this, as ICANN can not and must not take positions contrary to the law of the countries that are keeping a dispute, if you take a different position to that posed by these means clearly a political statement on the matter and I think that this is not desired at this time.
7 Comments
Eduardo Diaz
I concur with the general ALAC statement.
I recommend to eliminate the third bullet - “ the request for change should bring le country to a region closer to its land” from the statement. It restricts the country to a change based on its physical location. The country might have other reasons as to why they may want to change e.j. language, cultural/ethnicity background, etc.
I will add additional bullets as follows to replace the third bullet previously mentioned:
-ed
Sergio Salinas Porto
I wish leave some comments on work done by the working group Geographic Regions in the draft final report. Tomorrow send the document of LACRALO
Personally I must say that I agree with the document prepared by ALAC.
I'm going to stop at some points in the document.
Item 47.e. - I read the text in English and Spanish, and I understood that it may had suffered some kind of misunderstanding by the translator, but not, I think the wording is ambiguous and may have some problems with the interpretation.
Let me make clear that under no circumstances this document is to let the precedent of a region tell how to determine the levels of representation and participation. The members of our region are the same members who develop its rules of procedure and full and relevant. In LACRALO the rules and laws are clear on this point and no have need to change when we are talking about representation.
That's why I suggest that the last part of Item 47 e) :
"... In addition, increasing the number of countries in the region was once a very small number should increase representation and participation options within the region ..." Is excluded from it, as any country that automatically integrates a region has the same rights and obligations as others who are integrating the region so far.
Item 50 .- In the reading I have done to this item I wish to expose the position that we, Internet users in Latin America , the Caribbean and our States have about Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) issue and that it should be rule to all similar cases which occur in this area:
For LAC, natives of the islands are Argentine citizens living full indivisible part of the national territory is illegally occupied by an invading power, therefore can not be applied the principle of self, but to be applied the principle of integrity territorial state. The sixth paragraph of resolution 1514 (XV) of the UN General Assembly, enacted on December 14, 1960, states that "any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption [...] the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. "
Then, in resolution 2353 (XXII) of January 8, 1968, the Assembly reaffirmed that "any colonial situation which totally or partially destroyed [...] the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. "
This will only have two parties to the dispute over sovereignty, Argentina and the United Kingdom.
Argentina believes that Resolution 2065 (XX) urged to resolve the dispute through negotiations, taking into account the "interests" rather than "wishes" of the islanders. Argentina considers that is not recognized right to self when referring to the "interests" of the inhabitants of the Malvinas (Falkland Island) and is recommended to be "taken into account" by the two countries dispute the sovereignty .
In the Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations have detected two points that I would like to say something:
In item 73 would be appropriate in the case of the new map divides sub regions united by language, culture and ethnicity, is the possibility of these sub-components to migrate in bloc according to their values common and in order not to break with all that sub-identity. This flexibility will result in better work and productivity within ICANN and better management of resources.
About Item 76 I have to say as I stated in item 50 in the case of Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands) in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960, the UN General Assembly, self-determination is the free expression of "the will and desire" of the inhabitants of a territory without self-government. Argentina and all the countries that make up Community of Latin American and Caribbean, CELAC (http://tinyurl.com/6rdbq4p) believe that is not recognized right to self when referring to the "interests" of the inhabitants the Falkland Islands and is recommended to be "taken into account" by the two countries dispute the sovereignty. Therefore it is necessary to revise this, as ICANN can not and must no take positions contrary to the law of the countries that are keeping a dispute, if you take a different position to that posed by these means clearly a political statement on the matter and I think that this is not desired at this time.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Recommend altering the ALAC statement to add an additional reason to those listed under "If the actual framework is not perfect, the one proposed is not better for the following reasons:"
* divides the special and unique identity of the Caribbean into two regions
Sergio Salinas Porto
ESPANISH & ENGLISH
Documento del LACRALO sobre el borrador de la declaración de ALAC sobre la revisión del proyecto del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Regiones Geográficas
Introducción
Este trabajo fue realizado por el grupo de trabajo constituido en el seno del LACRALO a partir del envío de pedido de recomendaciones por parte del presidente de ALAC, señor Olivier Crepin Leblond, el 14 de Diciembre de 2011, el mismo fue integrado por los siguientes representantes de ALS que componen el RALO y que voluntariamente se sumaron a trabajar en pos de un documento elaborado desde la region.
Sylvia Herlein de Internauta Brasil
Alejandro Pisanty de ISOC México
Marcelo Telez de Internauta Argentina
Antonio Medina Gomez de ACUI
Alberto Soto de IIISI
Federico Daguerre de Internauta Argentina
Juan Manuel Rojas de Ageia Densi Colombia
Sergio Salinas Porto de Internauta Argentina
Documento del LACRALO sobre el borrador de la declaración de ALAC sobre la revisión del proyecto del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Regiones Geográficas
El LACRALO quiere dar su apoyo en general al proyecto de declaración de ALAC sobre la revisión de las regiones geográficas.
Sin embargo quisiéramos hacer algunos agregados y comentarios que creemos de importancia, con el fin de indexar y acompañar el proceso y liderazgo que ALAC viene sosteniendo en este tema.
Entendemos que el término “Mother Countries” no tendría que utilizarse en los documentos de regiones geográficas o si se utiliza que se lo ponga entre comillas, ya que, puede ser tomado como ofensivo por algunos países de la región.
Con respecto a la división geográfica a partir de los RIR´s propiamente dicha queremos dejar aclarado que el informe explica muy poco por qué considera ventajosa la división de los RIRs. Coincidimos con la visión de ALAC sobre este punto.
Vemos como una ventaja que se le dé la posibilidad a aquellos países unidos por el idioma, la cultura y la etnia, la posibilidad de que estos sub-componentes migren en bloque de acuerdo a sus valores comunes y con el fin de no romper con su identidad.
Esta flexibilidad se traduciría en un mejor trabajo y productividad dentro de ICANN y una mejor gestión de los recursos.
Entendemos que el trabajo de regiones geográficas no debe contener ninguna referencia a términos de representatividad o participación dentro de algunas de las regiones, superando lo expuesto en sus leyes internas.
Algunos de los aspectos más importantes de la división actual residen en la afinidad de culturas y regímenes legales. Es necesario una mayor claridad sobre cuáles son los criterios que han de pesar a la hora de realizar una futura división geográfica.
Recomendamos modificar la declaración de ALAC para añadir un motivo más para los que se enumeran en "Si el marco actual no es perfecto, la propuesta no es mejor por las siguientes razones:" divide la identidad e integridad del Caribe en dos regiones "
Vemos que sería una buena oportunidad para incorporar al equipo de trabajo de la regiones geográficas a un geógrafo que ayude al diseño y la viabilidad de este tema.
Entendemos que una buena práctica sería incorporar en el siguiente ciclo de trabajo al GAC, con el cual tendríamos incorporada la voz de los Estados.
English
LACRALO document on the draft declaration on the ALAC Review Working Group draft Geographic Regions
Introduction
This work was done by the working group formed within the LACRALO for order of recommendations from the ALAC President, Mr. Olivier Crepin Leblond, on December 14, 2011, it was composed of the following representatives ALS that make up the RALO and voluntarily joined to work toward a document produced from the region.
Sylvia Herlein de Internauta Brasil
Alejandro Pisanty de ISOC México
Marcelo Telez de Internauta Argentina
Antonio Medina Gomez de ACUI
Alberto Soto de IIISI
Federico Daguerre de Internauta Argentina
Juan Manuel Rojas de Ageia Densi Colombia
Sergio Salinas Porto de Internauta Argentina
LACRALO Document on the Draft ALAC statement about the review of the proposed geographic
The LACRALO want to give general support to the ALAC draft Statement on the review of geographic regions.
But we want to make some additions and comments that we think are important in order to index and monitor the process, that ALAC has maintained leadership in this area.
We understand the term "Mother Countries" should not be used in geographic regions documents or if it will use must put it in quotes, since it can be taken as offensive by some countries in the region.
With regard to the geographical division from the actual RIR's, we want to make clear that the report no explains why it considers an advantageous the RIRS division. We agree with the vision of the ALAC on this point.
We see an advantage to be given the opportunity to those countries united by language, culture and ethnicity, the possibility that these sub-components migrate like blocks according to their common values and in order not to break with its identity.
This flexibility would result in better work and productivity within ICANN and better management of resources.
We understand that the work of geographical regions must not contain any reference to terms of representation or participation in some regions, overcoming the above are in their domestic law.
Some of the most important aspects of the current division reside in the affinity of cultures and legal regimes. You need clarity on what are the criteria to weigh when making a future geographical division.
Recommend too altering the ALAC statement to add an additional reason to those listed under "If the actual framework is not perfect, the one proposed is not better for the following reasons:" divides the special and unique identity of the Caribbean into two regions"
We would be a good opportunity to bring to the team of Geographic Regions an geographer to help design and feasibility of this topic.
We understand that a good practice would be incorporated into the next work cycle the GAC, which would have incorporated the voice of the States.
Carlton Samuels
Since I was an active member of the Geographic Regions Working Group and I accepted the report as a consensus document, I did not intend to make any further submissions. For to do so would, in effect, means I'm responding to my own output. However, reason and good judgment demands that I make these comments apropos the "draft LACRALO document.se.My comments are prefaced by and dependent upon the English translation of the 'LACRALO Draft document' here inline.
This draft blithely ignores several and sundry Caribbean ALS comments regarding this report and the work of the group, face-to-face, on LACRALO teleconferences as well as the mailing list. On the balance of the facts therefore, this publication may not quite ready to be termed a "LACRALO" document, much less a position. Secondly and again in deference to poor translation, specific comments are not supported by the contents of the report.The political maneuverings for domestic consumption aside and while it might be inconvenient to acknowledge, the report clearly states our findings for the principal use of geographic regions in the ICANN world; diversity in ICANN Board representation.
Other uses came over time. So what matters most in concept is this notion of 'representation'. And what this means, in practice; the ability to impact names and numbers policy development in some significant way.Thirdly, the report does not say or advocate for any geographic division usage in ICANN as 'advantageous'. Rather, it does recognize that 'geographic region' is a notional concept in ICANN. Meaning there is no consistency of use, either as a notional concept or in any interpretation for use.What the report advocates and indeed recommends is harmonization consistent with the representational notion. And it lays out a framework for action that might apply, if this is accepted. It offers the sense of 'geographic region' embraced by the RIRs as a good starting point. PLUS, acceptance of a few other actions in furtherance of the principal objective; representation.
These include migrations of political units between and among existing ICANN regions. And allowing one-time self-selection by political units for regional attachments. This is not in furtherance of the perfect union but balanced representation
A declaration that the report not 'contain any reference to terms of representation or participation in some regions' is flawed and, well, let's say counterintuitive.
In the first place representation is inherent to the use of 'geographic regions' in the ICANN world. In reference to the report itself and since it does not arise therein, I cannot account the concern re 'participation'.
I'm hoping that this was suggested tongue in cheek. But if this was serious, it is a telling piece of evidence that the issues laid out in the report remain undigested. The use of the physical construct 'geographic region' in the ICANN world was to advance certain political objectives. A geographer - the physical planner professional- is hardly likely to impact here.- Carlton Samuels
Sergio Salinas Porto
Calton:
You're not clear on the intentions of this mail.
The work DONE by the working group within the LACRALO, joined the labor issues that had consensus in the region and was very careful not to incorporate those issues on which THERE WERE no consensus. Example: "... We see an advantage to be given the opportunity to those countries united by language, culture and ethnicity, the possibility that these sub-components migrate in block according to their common values and in order not to break with their identity..."
This flexibility would result in better work and productivity within ICANN and better management of resources ... "
We BASED ON:
A) To pursue the principles of our region FollowING the consensus above anything else
B) To avoid hurt feelings.
IT was also sent a request for comment from the ALAC list.
We have never received a contribution from you in these days. When did you think doing this? Did you have intention to do so or to participate in the WRITING of A paper?.
I am sorry that you are using this type of methodology to discredit a good job in the region where 8 LACRALO members worked TOGETHER to have a UNIFY document. I deeply regret that noNE of you wished to make this work.
I still believe in a group of people working TOGETHER and not A person speaking for himself alone. It seems that you still BELIEVE That WHAT matters is the person isolated and not an entire region with a broad view WORKING TOGETHER AND REACHING CONSENSUS
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Dear All,
Please find attached several comments by ALSes in the Caribbean regarding the Draft Final Report by the Geographic Regions WG that was submitted directly to the public comment and is posted here for the record. A PDF can be viewed at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/877052/GeoRegions-Final-Report/comments-on-draft-final-report-of-Geographic-Regions-Review-WG.pdf
Introduction
We wish to thank the ALAC Chair for allowing the Caribbean ALSes to make this contribution and also express appreciation to the Geographic Regions WG for their work in producing the Draft Final Report.
Summary of key points
Our Specific Comments to the Draft Final Report are summarised as follows:
● The Caribbean is negatively impacted by the Geographic Region Review proposals since it is divided by the WG’s recommendations;
● The Caribbean should be given the option to collectively stay in the LAC region or to be reallocated to another region;
● Any Framework must be based on representation, participation and operations and it must be left to the specific communities of interest to decide which combinations of
these best suit their particular needs;
● Any defined Special Interest Group must be given appropriate legitimacy by offering tangible ICANN representation;
● Any Caribbean country or territory should be able to apply to change the region to which their country and territory would be classified under the RIR system;
● Any regional reassignments should:
- be permitted at the beginning of the application of the new framework
- include support of the local Internet community (not just Governments)
- allow revisions to occur in an appropriate time (not 10 years) after the Framework is reviewed (in 5 years);
● Any country or territory directly affected by the RIR reallocation should be opt-in rather than opt-out.
Specific Comments
It is our pleasure to express our specific comments on the following paragraphs of the draft Final Report:
- 5. (supported by ICANN’s By Laws as referenced in paragraphs 8. and 32.; echoed in paragraph 34., 37., 39., 56. and 57.) in which the WG states that individual communities and structures within ICANN should have the flexibility to either adopt the ICANN framework or to develop their own procedures (with Board oversight) for ensuring geographic diversity within their own organizations. We believe that this level of subsidiarity and flexibility in the draft report is important to truly engage the individual communities;
- 6. in which the WG recognizes potential allowances must be made for cultural and language diversity, whilst also endorsing the establishment of special interest groups or cross-regional groupings to promote the interests and unique attributes of communities. In the Caribbean ALSes comments to the Interim Report of the WG (found at https://community.icann.org/x/-wOB ) the potential of a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) cross-regional grouping was endorsed;
- 17. in which the WG identifies the three primary “Usage Categories” of Representation, Participation and Operations currently utilized within the ICANN community and confirms that such categories are the basis and an important component of the WG’s analytical framework.
We believe that this is the crux of the determination on Geographic Regions and do not believe that such determination should be made using only one of these Usage Categories, but rather by evaluation of the net effect of all three, along with any peculiar cultural and language diversity identified by the community it relates (as identified in paragraph 6.);
- 22. which highlights that the specific recommendations for modification of the Geographic Regions Framework, made to the ICANN Board ensure that the organizational principles of geographic and cultural diversity are honoured and maintained. While we agree with this statement we concur that the Caribbean is a unit defined not only by its geographic nexus with the Caribbean Sea but also a range of other facets including history, culture, language etc. Therefore any recommendation for some Caribbean Countries to join the North American Region whilst others stay (specifically English-speaking Belize, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago) within the Latin American and Caribbean Region is wholly unacceptable. Other CARICOM countries that will be similarly affected are Suriname and Haiti.
- 27. in which the WG considers the historical underpinnings and evolution of ICANN’s Geographic Regions Framework and asks the community:
a. Has the existing geographic regions framework produced its desired effect?
b. Are the five regions still relevant, reasonable and defensible in the year 2010?
c. Are the regions, in fact, consistent with the international norms of today?
We agree that these are crucial to consider the success of the current Geographic Regions.
- 29. in particular, we confirm that we support points:
e. which considers the option of creating New Regions such as a New Region for “Small Island Developing States”;
f. which considers the option of Relocating Specific States to More Appropriate Regions;
g. which considers the Purpose of Geographic Diversity in ICANN Processes;
h. which highlights Culture, Language and Other Measures of Diversity as important factors;
and
i. which states the Need to Regularly Review The Geographic Regions Framework.
- 41. which recognises that ICANN’s structures and processes should lower barriers for participation and engagement by community members as much as practicable. This has not been the case for the Caribbean ALSes in LACRALO as the necessity for translation and interpretation in participation on the mailing list, conference calls and producing documents has meant that we work doubly hard in ensuring our views are captured and that output is coherent. The very different histories, culture and languages between the countries of Latin America and those of the Caribbean also make it difficult for true consensus statements to be produced, which is the basis for the production of the Caribbean ALSes comments to the WG’s Interim Report and to this Final Report.
- 47. which describes use of the RIR system as the starting point for a revised regional framework, and the noted disadvantages of adopting the RIR framework. Whilst we agree with Subparagraph e. that the Caribbean has closer ties with North America, we must insist that the Caribbean be given the option to make such transit from Latin America as a whole and thus such proposal should include all the countries of the Caribbean.
- 48. b which recognises the significant negative impact to the Caribbean. We confirm that the Caribbean in the Latin American and Caribbean region consists of 16 countries (being Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bahamas, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). Indeed, the proposal of using the RIR system of allocation would result in the Caribbean in the Latin America and Caribbean Region being reduced to 9 countries: Belize, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Haiti, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Netherland Antilles and Aruba.
With most of the English speaking Caribbean re-allocated to the North American region, the RIR system leaves only two English speaking Caribbean ALS country representatives of Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana. Splitting the English speaking Caribbean (countries with shared history, culture and language) into two regions is not acceptable.
- 50. which allows for only those countries whose regional allocation due to be changed be allowed the one-off opportunity to stay in their existing region. We instead strongly recommend that ALL countries of the Caribbean (regardless of whether the regional allocation is due to be changed) be given the option to stay in the region or to be reallocated to another region.
-53. We support the concept of giving countries the ability to seek reassignment from one region to another, except that in subparagraph:
a. reassignments should be permitted at the beginning of the application of the new framework;
b. in line with paragraph 52 that any move be “in accordance with the wishes of the territory’s Internet community and the Government of that territory”, we suggest that the support of the local Internet community be explicitly added to the requirements and not only that of the Government. Further, we suggest that the system, if adopted, be an opt-in rather than an optout, which requires considerable activity (and Government approval) to maintain the status quo.
c. given that the new framework will be reviewed in 5 years (stated in paragraphs 69. and 71.), we suggest that countries be given the option to reassign after the results of such framework review is published. Therefore a more appropriate time estimate to allow reassignment by countries may be 8 years, rather than 10 years.
- 55. to 59. regarding the Use of the New Framework by ICANN Communities, we agree with the recommendations of the WG in particular that the organizational principles of geographic and cultural diversity must be solidified.
- 60. to 67. and 77. which relates to Special Interest Group and Cross Regional SubGroups, we agree that such groupings can be useful especially for topic-based groupings (such as “Small Island Developing States”) which would exist in multiple regions and could collaborate on ICANN related policy work. However, we note that while the WG states that “such “bottom-up” interest should be recognized and encouraged” such groupings must be backed up by real representation. In its current incarnation being unofficial in nature there are benefits described in subparagraph 67.c, but there is no guarantee of increased representation in ICANN’s policy development or in ICANN’s various ACs, SOs and Board.
Therefore, while it is a forum to increase collegal work, we do not anticipate that the Caribbean (and other countries forming such groupings) would be well served without tangible representation.
- 69. with ICANN staff tasked to “Developing a self-selection process for ICANN participants to apply to change the region to which their territory or country would be classified under the RIR system and a process for recording that information when a decision is reached” it is crucial - information about any country intention to change the region to which they would be classified should be published for comment so that other countries within the existing region and the reallocated region are aware before any change is done.