| Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) and | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31.12.2013 | Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic Regions Working Group Recommendations | Adopted 14Y, 0N, 0A |
| 12.13.2013 | 08.01.2014 | 09.01.2014 | 09.01.2014 | 13.01.2014 | 14.01.2014 | 15.01.2014 | Dave Archibold Rob Hoggarth | AL-ALAC-ST-0114-03-00-EN |
Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.
Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.
Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
Dear Dave,
Thank you for your original note of 3 July 2013 regarding the Final Report of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group that you chair.
The At-Large Advisory Committee has considered the Working Group recommendations and would like to make the following remarks:
Recommendation B
The ALAC supports the recommendation for ICANN to adopt a more rigorous approach by re-defining a clear and consistent classification framework that assigns countries and territories to regions. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the way and the criteria for such re-definition were suggested.
Recommendation E
Using the RIR framework wouldn’t be a good approach because it is being contested even inside the RIR community. If we feel that the current ICANN framework is not good, we should not replace it with a contested one.
Recommendation G
The ALAC strongly supports that ICANN must acknowledge the Sovereignty and right of self-determination of States to let them choose their region of allocation and request, if they so desire, a move to another geographic region.
We also believe that any application for reassignment should have the support of the government of the country or territory and the local internet community.
We think that requesting a reassignment each 3 years is too much. The maximum frequency shouldn’t exceed one request per 5 years.
Recommendation H
While the paragraph 67 mentions that it is not suggested each SO and AC be permitted to create its own regional framework, the recommendation says that the manner each SO-AC (but not the board) meets the geographic diversity requirements of that system should be up to them, and that they may, or may not, make use of the regional framework. The ALAC find that very ambiguous and could lead to a misunderstanding.
Recommendation I
When we speak about geography, we are speaking about regions, and the ALAC doesn’t believe that the geographic regions could be in any case built on other consideration than the regional one. The cultural and linguistic diversity are important but can’t impact the geographic regions framework. If we want it to be regions plus culture plus language, we have to call it diversity, not geographic regions.
The “special interest groups” is a legitimate interest that can be recognized by ICANN but not in the context of geographic regions.
Recommendation K
Finally, the ALAC supports the recommendation to amend the bylaws to modify the present requirement for review of the Geographic Regions from three years period to five.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
Dear Dave,
Thank you for your original note of 3 July 2013 regarding the Final Report of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group that you chair.
The At-Large Advisory Committee has considered the Working Group recommendations and would like to make the following remarks:
Recommendation B
The ALAC supports the recommendation for ICANN to adopt a more rigorous approach by re-defining a clear and consistent classification framework that assigns countries and territories to regions. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the way and the criteria for such re-definition were suggested.
Recommendation E
Using the RIR framework wouldn’t be a good approach because it is being contested even inside the RIR community. If we feel that the current ICANN framework is not good, we should not replace it with a contested one.
Recommendation G
The ALAC strongly supports that ICANN must acknowledge the Sovereignty and right of self-determination of States to let them choose their region of allocation and request, if they so desire, a move to another geographic region.
We also believe that any application for reassignment should have the support of the government of the country or territory and the local internet community.
We think that requesting a reassignment each 3 years is too much. The maximum frequency shouldn’t exceed one request per 5 years.
Recommendation H
While the paragraph 67 mentions that it is not suggested each SO and AC be permitted to create its own regional framework, the recommendation says that the manner each SO-AC (but not the board) meets the geographic diversity requirements of that system should be up to them, and that they may, or may not, make use of the regional framework. The ALAC find that very ambiguous and could lead to a misunderstanding.
Recommendation I
When we speak about geography, we are speaking about regions, and the ALAC doesn’t believe that the geographic regions could be in any case built on other consideration than the regional one. The cultural and linguistic diversity are important but can’t impact the geographic regions framework. If we want it to be regions plus culture plus language, we have to call it diversity, not geographic regions.
The “special interest groups” is a legitimate interest that can be recognized by ICANN but not in the context of geographic regions.
Recommendation K
Finally, the ALAC supports the recommendation to amend the bylaws to modify the present requirement for review of the Geographic Regions from three years period to five.
9 Comments
Christopher Wilkinson
Well, I must have completely overlooked this one because I have never seen any of that before. A few comments, necessarily superficial:
Incidentally, isn't it rather strange that there was apparently no European participant in the WG?
CW
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Dear Christopher,
in response to your comments:
Re: European participants, calls for volunteers were made on several occasions and probably no European stood forward.
Alberto Soto
Hola. Cuáles son los Grupos de Interés detectados por el WG citados en el item 85? Muchas gracias
Wolf Ludwig
I have submitted an EURALO position already on ICANN's geographic regions during the last consultations round (in January 2011) – with no result or consideration. I think that the first two points of our statement are still relevant from our regional (European) POV: (...)
1. However, when we were looking at the key references for the definition of the existing ICANN regions we found out that most of them are UN-based and applied by the UN system. The UN references are predominant and make sense for many parts of the world but they do not necessarily reflect the extraordinary diversity of (ICANN) regions like Asia-Pacific and Europe. From a European point of view and perspective, the standards and definitions set by the Council of Europe (CoE) are broadly relevant, accepted and important. And many countries are part of Europe and its regional definition – according to CoE standards – which are situated in the East – see: http://www.ena.lu/member_states_european_organisations_2008-021000009.html
Some of these countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan or Georgia are members of the CoE but considered in other classification models (incl. ICANN) as part of the Asian region. We therefore suggest that the definitions and classifications by the Council of Europe are taken into consideration as well in the ICANN context.
2. In recent years, EURALO had some discussions with people from Eastern countries like Armenia and Azerbaijan who expressed strong interest in joining and participating in our RALO, arguing that they have a stronger affinity to Europe than to the Asian region (for historical, cultural etc. reasons). We always had to reassure them that they “formally” and, according to ICANN definitions, are part of APRALO. When we were arguing before to maintain the existing regional model at ICANN as a general rule, we would like to suggest some considerations on exceptional or border cases and to introduce a new “principle of self-determination” for such particular border cases. We are conscious that exceptions always need to be well justified to avoid abuses. And such a “principle of self-determination” needs to be further discussed and specified on particular circumstances, procedures of consultations, mutual approval and decision-making. In the given example of Armenia or Azerbaijan, a consultation process with the regions concerned (APRALO and EURALO) would be indispensable. And a decision on any exceptional application could be taken with the approval by both RALOs concerned only (sort of mutual recognition procedure – MRP). We are aware that there is always a justified fear of undesired precedence involved, but such a “principle of self-determination” is recognised in international law as well.
(...)
Thanks for taking our concerns into account.
Samvel Martirosyan
Just few moments about Armenia and why Armenia is closer to Europe. Lets forget about cultural, language etc questions. Armenia is a member of Council of Europe and that means deeper involvement in European regulations of internet. Just an example: ITU Dubai agreement, look at the map and will see that Armenia is among few countries which joined Europe and US: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml
And on the other hand Armenia has minimum relations with most of the Asia countries.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Dear Samvel,
there will be the possibility of Armenia to choose its region.
I refer you to the executive summary point 8:
This is exactly what the ALAC asked in a prior Statement.
Paragraph 60: (recommendation G) is pretty clear about this:
"In order to protect the sovereignty and right of self-determination of states, the
Paragraph 63 reinforces this.
Samvel Martirosyan
Dear Olivier,
many thanks for clarification!
Holly Raiche
I agree with both Tijani and Wolf. The really difficult areas are ones of boundary - where does 'Europe" end and Asia begin? Where does the Middle East fit - including Turkey, and the 'stan's. Clealry, geography is important, but then other criteria are needed so there is consistency is the way lines are drawn.
Tijani Ben Jemaa
I think that all your concerns are addressed. Each country or territory will have the opportunity to move from its original region to another one. In its comment on the previous report of the WG, the ALAC asked for keeping the existing framework and giving the opportunity to each country or territory to ask for moving to another region, and that's exactly what the final report recommended.