Hmm… I need to research this topic more, because it is important to understand why we have this divergence away from the technical structures. My initial thought is that it's probably to do with participation in agenda setting and decision-making processes. It's not enough to just be a member of a Regional Internet Registry (I believe these are/were at time open to any country, regardless of its geographical location); you want the people of countries to actively be supported in their outreach initiatives and to feel like their perspectives matter. So you might want to fall within a regional structure where you have shared interests, common languages, or political recognition. I'm not saying that's what happens in practice — but I can understand the train of thought. I'll do some more research to understand the RIRs and what would be involved in starting a new one, as my knowledge of this area is currently non-existent. Thanks, Ayden On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 12:53 PM, Michael Oghia [log in to unmask] wrote: Ayden, I figured that was the case. To me, it would make more sense for ICANN's regional delineations to follow the RIRs' delineations. That way, even if certain artificial constructions exist, they are at the very least streamlined across Internet communities -- specifically when RIRs work so closely with IANA and ICANN. Best, -Michael On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Hi Michael, From ICANN's perspective, I would think it comes down to cost. They would need to provide additional meeting rooms at ICANN meetings, perhaps increase the travel support budget, expand Adobe Connect capabilities, enlarge the RALOs so that they mirror the geographical regions framework, and provide additional Staff resources to manage all of this. And I don't think we could get away with just adding the Caribbean either, what about Arab nations? Small Pacific islands? And there's probably a legitimate claim for South East Asia being a region of its own, too… The regions are confusing as it is at the moment. One report I read provided this example, that “ccTLD managers in the Middle East are by definition part of ICANN’s Asian, Australian, Pacific Region. At the same time, for the allocation of IP number resources, they rely on RIPE NCC, the Regional Internet Registry for Europe and the Middle East, and therefore are considered to be part of the European Region. If somebody from the Middle East were elected through the ccNSO to serve on its Council or the ICANN Board, he or she would be considered to originate from the Asian, Australian Pacific Region. If elected through the ASO to serve on the ASO EC or the ICANN Board that same person would take a seat for the European Region.” Do we want to add to the confusion here and to further expand the regions? I'm not sure what the best solution is. All I know is that the current framework is broken, and that the regions - no matter how we classify countries - are going to be some kind of artificial construction. I understand that the community is dissatisfied with ICANN's current regional structures. I am told they adversely impact their representation and participation in ICANN activities. If someone could please provide some specific examples of this, that would be great. A relevant case study which we could add to our statement to demonstrate how ICANN's current framework harms the NCSG would, in my view, be a strong addition.  Best wishes, Ayden On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 12:20 PM, Michael Oghia [log in to unmask] wrote: Out of curiousity: Is there any reason why the Caribbean couldn't be see as its own region, aside from brevity? Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia Istanbul, Turkey Journalist & editor 2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador Skype: mikeoghia Twitter | LinkedIn On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Shane Kerr <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Seun, While ARIN predates ICANN, when ICANN was formed ARIN was still the RIR for North America, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa. Certainly in the case of Jamaica, since the official language is English it made a certain amount of sense for them to have stayed with ARIN as an RIR. The Caribbean islands all have unique backgrounds, and I suspect trying to group them to get any kind of regional consensus is always going to be problematic. :) Cheers, -- Shane At 2016-03-29 21:55:41 +0100 Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > That particularly amazed me Tracy. There is an ARIN meeting that will be > holding in Jamaica sometime in April. It was quite interesting for me to > learn that based on ICANN categorisation, .jm fall under the LAC zone even > though it's within the ARIN region (RIR wise). Don't know how much this > impacts on the work of the NCSG but I believe it does for the At-Large > community. > > Considering that ARIN predates ICANN, one would expect there is already > existing data set to work with. Nevertheless, I guess there may have been > some other reason that informed their decision which ofcourse is currently > be out of my reach/grasps > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > On 29 Mar 2016 9:08 p.m., “Tracy F. Hackshaw” <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > See ARIN - LACNIC split in the Caribbean region. > > > > Sent from my Fire > > > > > > On March 29, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Karel, > > > > While that concern was raised, my understanding is that it was not carried > > forward into the recommendations. The Working Group did not recommend > > moving most of the Caribbean region from the ICANN silo of Latin America to > > North America because it feared the two regions would be split on > > geographical and linguistic lines (I would suggest they already are…), > > among other reasons of “practicality”. It does, however, have provisions in > > place to allow a country's government to voluntarily request to move to > > another region. The procedures around how this would happen have not yet > > been developed by Staff. > > > > I welcome any comments or suggestions you might have for our statement, > > and I look forward to reading your additions. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Ayden > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Karel Douglas <[log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > > >> Good work - I read the NCUC report which caused me to immediately > >> read the final report of the WG. > >> > >> I'm glad that the issue of the Caribbean region was discussed as it is a > >> very topical issue. > >> > >> Carlton Samuels was on the WG and would have highlighted the concerns > >> that we have. > >> > >> I will certainly try to add a few comments on your document. > >> > >> regards > >> > >> Karel > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> 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 > >>> <https://links8.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/Dd5veWqTH5ASiyVjh?rn=IyczV3YzlGZgc2cj5mI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0czV3YzlGZtc2cj5mI> > >>> and have also attached it to this email for those without access to that > >>> website. > >>> > >>> > >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-c2vVT2DNO73l89wfZTvKtY70rmaid8g7XBO-Vto9SM/edit > >>> > >>> > >>> You can read the Working Group's final report here: > >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en > >>> > >>> 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: File] > >>> <https://files10.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/f/BCMNixTRUUztzxobj/?messageId=8M4p5UFRgKhkng2my&rn=IyczV3YzlGZgc2cj5mI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0czV3YzlGZtc2cj5mI> > >>> Ayden Ferdeline - Response - WGGR Report.pdf 36KB > >>> <https://files10.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/f/BCMNixTRUUztzxobj/?messageId=8M4p5UFRgKhkng2my&rn=IyczV3YzlGZgc2cj5mI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0czV3YzlGZtc2cj5mI> Download > >>> > >>> <https://files10.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/f/BCMNixTRUUztzxobj/?messageId=8M4p5UFRgKhkng2my&rn=IyczV3YzlGZgc2cj5mI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0czV3YzlGZtc2cj5mI> [image: > >>> Logo] > >>> <https://files10.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/f/BCMNixTRUUztzxobj/?messageId=8M4p5UFRgKhkng2my&rn=IyczV3YzlGZgc2cj5mI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0czV3YzlGZtc2cj5mI> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > Ayden Férdeline > > Statement of Interest > > <https://links3.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/O3C68GH6eSvhsgLYk?rn=gIVRURuIVWT5iVSV0UUNVSMB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI> > > > > > > Ayden Férdeline > > Statement of Interest > > <https://links5.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/iJxcFOO15b8EdscAg?rn=gIVRURuIVWT5iVSV0UUNVSMB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI> > > Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest