Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:48:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1880371468.2065.1710841732422@community1.lax.icann.org> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_2064_891571234.1710841732420" ------=_Part_2064_891571234.1710841732420 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
ORIGINAL: English
DATE: 30 January 2011
STATUS: Final
By the Staff of ICANN
The attached Statement constitutes the official response of the At-Large= Advisory Committee (ALAC) on the recent public consultation on the Interim Report of Geographic Regions Revi= ew Working Group. The Statement was initially drafted by Mohame= d El Bashir, member of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), on 26 Januar= y 2011.
The Statement was sent to the ALAC Working list for comments on 26 Janua= ry. No additional comments were received.
The Appendix to the Statement consists of the contributions from the fiv= e At-Large Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs). The comments reflect th= e actively discussed views of the RALOs with their diverse historical, ling= uistic, cultural and geographic differences.
On 30 January 2011, the Chair of the ALAC asked the Staff to start a fiv= e-day online vote on the ALAC Statement on the Interim Report of the Geogra= phic Regions Review Working Group beginning 31 January 2011.
The result of this vote of ratification will be transmitted to the Geogr= aphic Regions Review Working Group as soon as it is known.
The enclosed Statement was submitted by email to the Geographic Regions = Review Working Group on 30 January 2011.
(End of Introduction)
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) appreciates the excellent work do= ne by the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. The interim report cover= s the legacy background information and raises important questions related = to the current ICANN region structure.
The At-Large current structure, including the Regional At-Large Organiza= tions (RALOs), which is based on ICANN's five geographical regions, consist= of 129 At-Large Structure (ALS) members representing internet users around= the world. We believe it is a good example that achieves diversity and rep= resentation in using the current ICANN regional structure. The ALSes repres= ent vastly diverse language, ethnic, technical interests within the same re= gion. We are satisfied with the current ICANN regions structure.
We are, however, concerned regarding proposals to introduce new ICANN re= gions or splitting the current regions which will severely affect and fragm= ent the current At-Large structure, this concern is also raised by AFRALO i= n its regional statement in response to the interim report.
We understand and acknowledge legitimate requests and issues raised rela= ted to the current ICANN regions. This is specifically the issue of the isl= ands nations geographical split between more than one region based on geogr= aphy and administrative/legal reasons and the status of some Eastern countr= ies like Armenia and Azerbaijan whom according to ICANN regions are part of= Asia Pacific region while in other international fora they are members of = the European region.
As the demography of internet users is changing and millions of new inte= rnet users are joining the internet from emerging or developing countries, = the Geographic Regions Working Group Interim Report recommendations should = encourage ICANN constituencies (AC/SOs) to review their current membership = frameworks to address issues of under-representation of those regions and e= ncourage more active participation from the least represented or active geo= graphical regions.
With specific reference to the Interim Report question on how to ensure = cultural diversity, the ALAC encourages the AC/SOs to seek membership of or= ganizations/entities to represent more cultural and linguistic diversity. V= alue could be added to the ICANN policy development process and each AC/SO = could employ tailored procedures to ensure diversity among its members.
ALAC recommends the Geographic Regions Working Group to recommend a regu= lar review of ICANN regions framework every five years review, the review s= hould focus in assessing ICANN regions impact on the issues representation = and participation within ICANN AC/SOs.
As with the wide diversity that exists within and between the five At-La= rge RALOs, including historical, linguistic, cultural and geographic differ= ences, there is also a diversity of perspectives on the issues raised in th= e Interim Report of the Geographic Regions Working Group. This diversity is= evident in the contributions from the RALOs set out in the Appendix to thi= s Statement.
AFRALO Statement on ICANN Geographic Regions
We, AFRALO members appreciate the work done by the geographic regions re= view working group and the key questions raised during this exercise, AFRAL= O would like to express it has no objection to the current ICANN geographic= region structure and distribution, we think that the current ICANN regions= fit its purposes.
Africa is a region fighting for unity to promote economic and social dev= elopment. As such, AFRALO members think any division of the African contine= nt would jeopardize the efforts deployed to realize this objective. History= has divided the continent by language and the actual efforts are for reuni= fication.
AFRALO recommends ICANN to keep the integrity of the African continent a=
s such with all its countries as actually recognized by the United Nations.=
With its 54 countries and its cultural diversity (multiple languages, diff=
erent types of populations, high demography, different political systems, v=
ariety of climates and vegetations, etc.) Africa, by itself, is a complex c=
ommunity model in which the members learn to respectfully communicate and l=
ive together, in harmony. For equity reasons, AFRALO recommends that ICANN =
finds mechanisms to provide due representation actors to each continent acc=
ording to the respective number of countries, regardless of the number of l=
anguages.
APRALO is submitting the following statements on three separate issues.<= /p>
Small Island cross-regional At-Large organisation
The attached submission is by the Vice C=
hair of PICISOC Maureen Hilyard which outlines the reasoning for the develo=
pment of a Small Island Developing States (SIDS) grouping within ICANN=E2=
=80=99s At=E2=80=90large structure.
-- Will Tibben
West Asia/Middle East sub-region or separate region
There is a certain amount of overhead agreement required to go this way. I=
f we can agree to making sub-groups under APRALO for the SIDS and the Arab =
Region AR, under APRALO facilitate them to appoint their structure/leadersh=
ip/operating articles, there would be speed for this under ALAC and of cour=
se APRALO instead of putting this through a much longer process at the ICAN=
N level. This is sort of a short-cut suggestion.
Within this proposal suggestion that will be an APRALO proposal to ALAC = and should ALAC approve it, APRALO can appoint two sub-regions APRALO-SIDS = and APRALO-AR. Both the sub-groups can have then their own leadership out o= f which the Chair or President or Director (any form they choose to be suit= able for them) will be present in APRALO to have issues and processes moved= up, presented and completed. The sub-groups can have their own secretariat= s and participate with the ALAC RALO Secretariats' without the need to go t= hrough APRALO for this process.
SIDS and AR can also have their showcases under APRALO. APRALO within th= is model would give equal weight to concerns and issues from these sub-regi= ons and move them forward to ALAC.
I put a lot of thought into this and this proposal seems to be very work= able without the need to shake anything upwards. It also reduces the time r= equired to get such an idea moving forward. However, I have not been able t= o draw out how APRALO's budget would be affected this way because we will n= eed budget for getting at least 4 new members to ICANN meetings etc. This i= s a touchy issue and I don't have the experience to deal with this at this = point in time and will require some expert guidance in the event the above = proposal is worth a consideration.
-- Fouad Bajwa
I haven't paid enough attention to the Geo wg... but I wonder if there i=
s room for sub-regions.
One of the implications of geo regions is of course the distribution of e.=
g. board members and other aspects in the policy development and decision m=
aking processes... sub-regions may allow us to further develop the framewor=
k...
-- Edmon Chung
Central Asia merging with Europe
This is a very interesting topic related to my own case. Within the fram= ework of ICANN Geo. regions Republic of Armenia is in Asia Pacific. Within = the framework of many other structures Armenia is within Europe, just as an= example given from the PPt (Geographic Regions Re= view Workshop Cartagena), according to "International = Norms, Armenia for within UN structure is considered as "Europe and Commonw= ealth of Independent States, ITU council uses Armenia within "Eastern Europ= e and Northern Asia", ITU (BDT) uses Armenia within "The Commonwealth of In= dependent States". This brings a lot of confusion for me as a represen= tative of Armenia. Currently there are discussions on this topic withi= n ALAC community, and I volunteered to participate in the discussions of bo= th in EURALO and APRALO in order to understand what kind of changes, discus= sions are taking place and where Armenia is considered to be in accordance = to these group discussions.
The easiest way will be the identification of Armenia within Europe, as =
Armenia is a member of United Nations since March 2, 1992, Armenia is a mem=
ber of Council of Europe since January 25, 2001. Currently Armenia works to=
wards becoming a member of the European Union. Armenia is a member of the E=
uropean ccNSO. Thus, my suggestion is to identify Armenia within Europe, no=
t within Asia Pacific also within ICANN framework.
-- Siranush Vardanyan
EURALO input to the on-going ICANN consultation process on the Interim R= eport of the Geographic Regions Review WG.
EURALO was following the discussion on ICANN=E2=80=99s geographic region= s on the ALAC and cross-community level with interest and created its own t= hematic Working Group recently to discuss the Interim Report of the Review = WG and its significance from a European regional perspective.
First of all, we would like to appreciate the excellent work done by the= geographic regions Review WG and the key questions raised during this exer= cise. There was agreement from the European WG members to reaffirm the exis= ting ICANN regional model and not to argue for any extension for more regio= ns.
Some of these countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan or Georgia are members = of the CoE but considered in other classification models (incl. ICANN) as p= art of the Asian region. We therefore suggest that the definitions and clas= sifications by the Council of Europe are taken into consideration as well i= n the ICANN context.
We are convinced, if we want to encourage a broader bottom-up participat= ion and inclusion of more Internet users at ICANN, we need to create condit= ions for participation reflecting the cultural particularities and sensitiv= ities of motivated people and potential ALSes.
Neuch=C3=A2tel/Switzerland, January 11
Wolf Ludwig -- on behalf of EURALO
Regional Position
A general consensus around the concepts and points of the Draft. Regardi= ng the possibility of dividing a region, it stands out the importance of ke= eping particularly the point 110 of the Draft.
Caribbean ALSes comments
The defined geographic region of LACRALO has in the past detracted from = ICANN=E2=80=99s goal of reflecting the functional, geographic and cultural = diversity of the Caribbean Region of Internet end-users. This is felt at a = basic level via participation on the mailing list and voicing opinions on m= atters; as well as relating to larger issues, such as policy development an= d voting of ALAC (and other) representatives.
ICANN=E2=80=99s Core Values We recognise the Initial Re= port identified representation, participation and operations as three prima= ry usage categories. Traditionally the Caribbean region has been under repr= esented and little involution has been made to encourage and increase parti= cipation. The argument for greater input from the Caribbean region is stren= gthened by the addition of the concepts of =E2=80=9Ccultural diversity=E2= =80=9D and =E2=80=9Cgeographic diversity=E2=80=9D to the ICANN Bylaws in 20= 02; the Caribbean being a unique segment of LACRALO in both these categorie= s and deserving of such recognition. Indeed ICANN, the corporation, has sin= ce 2006 employed and tasked an employee to be the Caribbean liaison.
In our view, the mechanism by which ICANN=E2=80=99s core values are appl= ied to RALOs is ill-defined, but we can apply the guidelines of the bylaws = which state:
=E2=80=9CSeeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting= the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all = levels of policy development and decision-making.=E2=80=9D --Fourth Core Va= lue; and Also while Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 4 which deals with ALA= C representatives is silent on this point; we can also apply guidance to en= shrine ICANN=E2=80=99s Core Values from: =E2=80=9C=E2=80=A6composed of memb= ers that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, = experience, and perspective=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D --Article VI Section 2
Diversity
We agree in the broader recognition of =E2=80=9Cdiversity=E2=80=9D to in= clude additional considerations of culture and language in the LACRALO. The= Caribbean is distinct in terms of its history, culture and language; furth= er it has indigenous challenges being small island states and specific need= s which are not a natural fit with the rest of Latin America. Due to these = differences LACRALO is able to benefit from varying opinions and has the po= tential to be a truly representative region. One small but important exampl= e is the predominant use of English language in the Caribbean Region, howev= er 90% of the mailing list discussion takes place in Spanish. With poor tra= nslation tools and the particular nuances between languages; we struggle to= understand each other and it becomes almost prohibitively difficult to com= municate, follow topic threads collaborate and participate fully. Interpret= ation between our two regions is currently poor and the result is misunders= tanding, frustration, duplicated effort and ultimately lack of participatio= n from our Region; thereby resulting in under-representation of our particu= lar perspectives and points of view.
Numbers of Internet users
We agree that the only measure of =E2=80=9Cbalance=E2=80=9D should not b= e limited to the number of internet users in a particular sub-region of LAC= RALO. Balance must tie into and promote diversity. This will only occur if = it includes the stakeholder groups in various communities of interest havin= g clear view-points on ICANN=E2=80=99s issues. Often, because of our divers= ity we see two clear perspectives emerging on issues- on one side from the = Latin American Region and on the other from the Caribbean Region. However, = since the Caribbean is always in the minority (both in terms of numbers of = ALSes and users) our votes, our participation and our opinions have little = impact unless an =E2=80=98arrangement=E2=80=99 is forged with Latin America= n representatives in order to push a particular motion (on our behalf). Thi= s is crippling to the Caribbean region=E2=80=99s presence in LACRALO on sev= eral levels:
Those not represented
We have not had any input from the Caribbean end-user groups in Martiniq= ue, Guadeloupe, French Guyana, Curacao, Bonaire, Aruba, Puerto Rico, US Vir= gin Islands or British Virgin Islands with regard to their issues with bein= g aligned to their mother country. But we encourage that their opinion be s= ought out by the Working Group.
Striking Balance
We have clearly identified these areas as opportunities to create balanc= e and build a more united LACRALO, and are supportive of the GNSO Principle= on Potential Change of Regions (August 2008) which states that =E2=80=9CIC= ANN regions should seek to balance three goals: diversity of representation= , ease of participation, and simplicity=E2=80=9D and such simplicity =E2=80= =9Cshould be balanced with the evolving needs of ICANN=E2=80=99s supporting= organisations and other bodies.=E2=80=9D
A Path Forward
Today the =E2=80=9CC=E2=80=9D in LACRALO means =E2=80=9CCROSSROADS=E2=80=
=9D.
There are several options:
1. Stay
We recognise that as a while we do have two different perspectives on ma=
ny matters, LACRALO as a whole is poised to become stronger and more i=
nclusive by recognising, reviewing and where possible representing both vie=
ws. In the Caribbean we perceive our differences as strengths, which give u=
s two separate but equally important vantage points to appreciate the whole=
. As such, we consider that the Latin American Region not only gains from o=
ur perspective in conformance with ICANN=E2=80=99s Core Values, but also be=
nefits by our native and dexterous use of English in reading, discussing, p=
resenting arguments and written contribution on behalf of the entire region=
of LACRALO.
At times, we have not felt willingness by our partners to look beyond thei=
r blinkers but we are hopeful that they will recognise the importance of bu=
ilding a framework of balance, not only in light of the above but to create=
unity and cohesion in LACRALO. In order to encourage this step and in cons=
ideration of the diversity of representation, ease of participation, and si=
mplicity goals highlighted above, we have proposed a LACRALO Bylaw modifica=
tion, such that one of the LACRALO Representatives to ALAC come from the Ca=
ribbean Region. This remains our preferred option.
2. Seek alignment with NARALO
While we have to go back a few centuries to find commonality in our hist= ories, both NARALO and the Caribbean Region share the same language and aki= n perspectives on many areas, including our view of democracy. These positi= ves give a strong impression that the Caribbean may find a better fit with = NARALO in order to contribute and represent. We are fully aware that it is = near impossible to find perfect alignment as the Caribbean region has a cle= ar identity and there will always be distinct aspect of our perspective. In= this respect the Caribbean region will only add to the diversity and widen= the viewpoint of whichever RALO it belongs to; what is crucial is that val= ue be given to that view when it is expressed.
3. New =E2=80=9CSmall Island Developing State=E2=80=9D RALO (SIDSRALO)= p>
We recognise that adding a new region to the existing geographic regiona= l framework results in increased costs for ICANN and perhaps reduced net bu= dget for each RALO. Despite this cost issue, we recognise that the Core Val= ues must prevail and there is merit in having a new grouping specific to th= e needs of Small Island Developing States like ours. Many of the smaller is= lands in our region are not represented because of limited resources and we= agree that ICANN=E2=80=99s structures and processes should lower barriers = for participation and engagement by community members as much as practicabl= e. By forming this new grouping we can leverage on our collective skills to= support smaller members not only in the Caribbean but globally, who will h= ave almost identical issues. Perhaps the main drawback with a SIDS RALO wou= ld be that we would be geographically dispersed and have to travel long dis= tances for face to face meetings such as a General Assembly.
4. Hybrid
This is a mix of option 1 or 2 with the additional support of forming a = special interest group by small Islands or similar culture groupings. This = is a mechanism of gaining the benefits of both worlds and would facilitate = that our voices are represented in both ways. However, this would require a= dditional funding to facilitate representation at meetings, calls, working = groups etc. of the particular special interest group.
Closing Points
The Caribbean ALSes consider that the Interim Report of the Geographic R= egions Working Group documents the existing situation, highlights the issue= s arising and connects these to ICANN=E2=80=99s Core Values. We however fee= l that there must be a much firmer embrace of ICANN Core values in terms of= balance, representation, participation. Notwithstanding the differences an= d issues that exist, the Caribbean has a deep level of fidelity and attachm= ent, and we wish to work and function as an equal partner in LACRALO. In th= is statement we have highlighted options to provide balanced contributions = and acknowledge that the simplest of these can be realised in the immediate= sense with a few adjustments to LACRALO Charter.
We laud the Working Group, specifically with regard to identifying and d=
etailing the specific needs of Small Island Developing States and will read=
ily endorse such grouping in whatever form. We hope that this step forward =
is not negated by issues of funding, as the underlying aim of this assessme=
nt is to encourage ICANN=E2=80=99s Core Values. We must always seek out, ch=
erish and ensure effective representation.
NARALO finds that the current situation in this region is satisfactory b= ut encourages the work of other At-Large regions in which the current syste= m may be seen to require change.
We also support investigating ways to increase the participation of Indi= genous populations, especially those whose cultural territory cuts across r= egional boundaries. However, we would strongly oppose any regional model (s= uch as the ITU) that would amalgamate all of the Western Hemisphere into a = single "Americas" region.