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)

Abstract

This Statement of the ALAC makes the following recommendations:

• Do not follow the recommendation of the ICANN Geographical Regions Review 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 says 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. As a result, comments received from the LACRALO region included the following:

 

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.

END OF DRAFT

---

Resources

• Geographic Regions Review – Draft Final Report
• Interim Report of Geographic Regions Review Working Group - Community Workspace
• Home Page of Geographic Regions Review Working Group
• Geographic Regions Review WG - Documents