Sorry, I didn't see your comment before, Paul. Thanks for writing.

I think we're on the same page here. I don't see much meaningful value behind the regions in their current form, but there is something symbolic. There is this idea that we don't want cultural hegemony. There are also some practical applications, like fulfilling Article VI, Section 5 of the bylaws, which calls for “broad international representation” on the ICANN Board. That being said, as you and Milton have rightfully noted, maybe it's not geographical diversity we need (though we don't want geographical isolation either), but instead cultural diversity. I'll see how I can address these concerns in a new revision of our statement, while maintaining an awareness of the Working Group's limited remit.

Best wishes,

Ayden

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 10:00 PM, Paul Rosenzweig [log in to unmask] wrote:

I have followed with interest.  I guess my question is to Ayden – you ask how being classified in the “wrong” region injures the Caribbean nations?  What is the value of regions in the first place?  If they are not operational (and I gather they are not) then I think Milton is right that they are cultural/diversity expressions --- and that geography is an imperfect proxy, at best, for those differences.  To be sure the US and Canada share much, but I suspect the Canadians would prefer not to be lumped with US.  And don’t get me started on the difference between Spain and, say, Poland ….

 

P

 

Paul Rosenzweig

[log in to unmask]

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key

 

 

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Geographic Regions Review Working Group Report - NCSG Response

 

Hi Karel,


Thanks for your comments. Can you please expand upon what you would consider to be a “meaningful Caribbean voice / representation” at the meeting? 

 

I absolutely hear what you and Milton are saying in that the countries of the world cannot be reduced to five groups. It might be convenient for ICANN but it implies something - is that a cultural connection, an economic one, a political link? Is there a technical reason that we need to consider (I'm thinking here of the Regional Internet Registries, who created them and why do they exist in their current structure)?

 

I'm sensitive to the suggestion that many Caribbean islands see a closer connection with North America than they do with Latin America, be that on economic or linguistic grounds or for another reason, but how does being classified in the 'incorrect' region damage them? If I may be provocative for a moment, would small Caribbean nations not be out-voiced in North America too? Would the Washington consensus not still prevail? I'm just trying to tease out the argument we're raising so I understand it better. Thanks!

 

Best wishes,

 

Ayden

 

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 9:26 PM, Karel Douglas [log in to unmask] wrote:

Thanks Milton,

 

This topic underscores my concerns arising out of my first ICANN meeting where I attended a LAC meeting. I was surprised to note that there was no meaningful Caribbean voice / representation at that meeting. I recognised then and there that there were significant differences in the “LA” and “C”. Despite being in the same region there are major differences that transcend language and culture. And this was reflected at the meeting. 

 

I understand that this is also an issue in the ALAC.

 

The Caribbean seems to overshadowed by the large LA countries and as a result is marginalised in such meetings. Despite being several territories the activities and interests of the LAC seem to be focused primarily on the LA part of the LAC.

 

I can only speak for myself but it would appear that we share more commonalities with the “North American” region than the LA region. 

 

regards

 

Karel

 

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Great to see you taking the initiative to get comments underway, Ayden.

I added some comments to the Google doc.

Personally, I believe that the statement overstates the significance of geographic diversity when what we are really interested in is overall population diversity, which might involve language and other culture, religion or ideology, economic status, etc. Geography is but a rough proxy for social differences, and often a bad one. I would like to see a comment raising consciousness about this. Given how arbitrary some of these dividing lines are (e.g., is Mexico North America – which it is geographically – or LAC, or which tiny Caribbean island gets placed where) It might clarify things to state the actual purpose of these regional divisions.

 

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 1:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Geographic Regions Review Working Group Report - NCSG Response

 

Hello, team- 

 

I have drafted a response to the final report of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group. Comments are due in about 25 days time but if we do decide to reply, I hope we can submit something in advance of that deadline. I've shared my first draft on Google Docs here and have also attached it to this email for those without access to that website.

 

 

You can read the Working Group's final report here: 

 

I suspect that we will have a wide birth of opinions on this topic, so please know that I'm very much open to reviewing or rethinking anything that appears in this early draft. I am also new to writing public comments like this one so welcome any feedback you would be kind enough to share. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

Best wishes,


Ayden Férdeline

 

Image removed by sender.

 

 

 

Ayden Férdeline

Image removed by sender.

 


Ayden Férdeline