Hi Alejandro: Probably without meaning to, you raised a most important definitional issue with voluntary organisations; extracting the motivations of those who participate and the very practical - using a more liberal term for 'consensus' - results one must attempt to achieve working from the inputs of those who show up to work. Everyone will not get all they would wish. But in the context, achieving some of what you'd wish has to be good enough. This was indeed a proper ICANN-style WG. It follows the framework laid down and we went thru all those cycles of negotiating the Charter; lots of docs on that. What I laid out was my interpretation of a mix of conversations from WG members, community activists who showed for the seminars and submissions from those who had an interest in the subject...and took the time to lay them out. I was hoping my backgrounder and a further reading of the reports would ease identification of the elements that came from the various motivations. I responded to an ALAC cattle call for volunteers; broadcasted on all channels. Our [Caribbean] regional interests motivated me to respond. I also went in from earlier conversations that the Pacific Islands shared our interests, by and large. The Caribbean agenda is clear but maybe worth repeating here. The declared consensus Caribbean policy perspective is from an Internet that is a platform for development, one that allows us to showcase our culture and way of life, be that now or aspirational. We translate this to mean an Internet that is singular, open and universally accessible, one that links each of us to all of us. We are compelled to collaborate with any effort that enable, project or conserve these goals. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com>wrote:
Carlton,
thanks for this very valuable detailed description; you make this sound like a Special Interest Group, not an ICANN-proper Working Group. Guess we will have to go way back to understand motivations and conflicts of the participants. If the WG was bound to arrive at a constrained type of result from predetermined agendas and self-selection of participants, we have a much larger problem than deciding whether to suggest 3- or 5-year periods between region changes.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Alejandro: To answer your questions, its probably best to frame the answer with some background.
The WG was chaired by Dave Archbold my friend and neighbour from the Cayman Islands. He is a member of the ccNSO community. Dave is originally Brit but living in the CI coming on 30 years. He's islander to the core and a Caribbean man as ever. In fact, he's spent more time living in the Caribbean than I have. The Cayman Islands, once a dependency of Jamaica, is 45 minutes by jet from Kingston, Jamaica. It is politically a British Overseas Territory. Under existing ICANN geographic rules and for the purposes of the At-Large, the Cayman Islands would be EURALO.
This is a similar situation for such places in the English-speaking Caribbean such as Turks & Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and Montserrat.
The historical fact is that every single conglomeration of the Caribbean Islands with Latin America has been difficult, principally from differences in language and the tendency for those of the same cultural affinity to favour those you feel share yours. ECLAC, the OAS and PAHO are pieces of evidence.
The major contradistinctions in this view are Fidel and Hugo (May he RIP).
I also know that the Caribbean has historically seen itself as a distinct Caribbean culture and not Latin. It is not controversial then that the sentiments in the Cayman Islands and all the others are emphatically pan-Caribbean as well. However, in the context of ICANN At-Large, we are LACRALO.
From all of the consultations with the community, there was very little sentiment for a growth in the number of regions. The overwhelming consensus view was that ICANN must follow its own head for defining its regions. However, there was overwhelming support for structures that recognized the possibility that disparate geographic units around the world may find common cause with each other, despite separation in distance or, proximity to each other. So, for example, meta-structures like Special Interest Groups (SIG) were considered as useful in this regard; an example is a SIG of Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
The WG also recognized the need to address the chafing and discomfort of units placed in geographic regions they find ill-suited to their affiliations and needs. Due consideration and embrace of ICANN's bottom-up policy development process allowed the conclusion that individual geographic units must be allowed a one time opportunity to choose the region they would caucus with on execution of a well-defined and transparent process.
The overwhelming Caribbean sentiment is for a distinct region. Same too for the Arab states. Some believe the APRALO is way to big and thusly, unrepresentative. But sentiments are largely against adding regions so consensus was not possible here. Some Central Asian republics would wish to caucus with EURALO instead of APRALO. Absent the possibility for making new regions, the report gave a good overlay of what might happen if some countries with sentiments to move regions are accommodated. I will not repeat them here but the working materials are available for research.
The information on slides presented at the several community briefings and seminars over the 2+ years of the WG's life also did a good job of highlighting - and dramatising - these possibilities. So, for example, they show the Cayman Islands as moving from EURALO to LACRALO. Or, NARALO. Or, following the precedent of the RIR boundaries, Barbados, Jamaica, St Kitts & Nevis, Bahamas etc moving to NARALO.
I believe this section was well documented and presented and the staff support provided by Robert Hogarth was superlative overall but simply splendid here. He's absolutely the best for this kind of work from two pre-eminent skills; he listens well and is great at seeing how interests intersect. Armed with this understanding, he's done a really good job of crafting appropriate compromise language in the report.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
2014/1/5 Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty@gmail.com>
Hola,
me sumo a las posiciones de Aída y Alberto en lo fundamental.
En cuanto a los cambios de un país de una región a otra, no debemos perder de vista el principio "multistakeholder"; cuando se instituyan los procesos, deberán ser parecidos a los de una redelegación de ccTLD.
Sí creo pertinente pedir precisiones a Carlton acerca de los efectos previstos para los cambios de región, en particular para Latinoamérica y el Caribe, con algunos ejemplos concretos. Le pediría describir especialmente dos casos: 1. el paso de países que actualmente están en LACRALO a otra región existente actualmente, y viceversa; 2. cambios en el caso de la creación de nuevas regiones. Esto además dará transparencia a su posición.
Aprovecho para enviar a todos/as un excelente año en 2014.
Saludos cordiales.
Alejandro Pisanty
2014/1/5 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>
Estimados Carlton, Alberto y todos:
Estoy de acuerdo con el informe. Entiendo que como dice Carlton el informe refleja las recomendaciones que se propusieron. Creo que se manejan criterios razonables como el de la ampliación del plazo de 3 a 5 años; también con un margen razonable de flexibilidad, buscando no generar distorsiones en el sistema general. Contempla la autodeterminación al admitir que se puedan realizar las solicitudes en base a criterios de libertad y soberanía pero también articular en cada caso con las posiciones de los países involucrados y también teniendo en cuenta las referencias geográficas. Por la naturaleza del documento no puede resolver cada caso concreto, pero da pautas para su solución teniendo en cuenta las solicitudes y las necesidades prioritarias de mantener un sistema global razonablemente estable y confiable..
Saludos a todos
El 5 de enero de 2014, 20:44, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org
escribió:
Estimado Carlton, hoy intenté dejar un comentario en la wiki, pero quizás por razones de comunicaciones no logré que el editor abriera el espacio para mi comentario.
Quería decir que estaba de acuerdo con Cheryl, quien a su vez estaba de acuerdo con opiniones anteriores, respecto de que es necesario considerar los casos de límites fronterizos, tal como estaban planteando dos casos entre Europa y Asia. Pero creo que también debe haber algún tipo de esclarecimiento de qué casos pueden aceptarse en la reasignación de zonas geográficas. Los planteados están muy claros, y pese a ser de Asia, es casi natural que sean considerados dentro de Europa, por las razones expuestas. Pero son fronterizos. Y si tenemos algún pedido no fronterizo (quizás antojadizo...) para una reasignación de zona, por ejemplo entre LACRALO y AFRALO? Por ahora parecería que deben tenerse en cuenta los casos fronterizos. Habrá algunos casos particulares más, que no desvirtúen la aplicación de la ISO 3166?? Que no se llegue a que un Gobierno local esté de acuerdo con el pedido, y luego aún despúes de eso, haya que decir que no? Saludos cordiales
Alberto Soto
On Sun 05/01/14 19:08 , carlton.samuels@gmail.com sent:
[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
Asunto: At-Large Solicitud de Escrito Comunidad ¡Opina - Recomendaciones del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Regiones Geográficas De: carlton.samuels@gmail.com
El Domingo, 05 de enero 2014 a las 7:00 am, euro-discuss-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org> escribió:
> At-Large Request For Written Community Feedback - Geographic > Regions Working Group Recommendations Workspace >
Cheryl Langdon Orr y yo representamos a la At-Large en este CCWG. Les puedo decir que hemos trabajado juntos para asegurar los puntos de vista de ALAC se articularon antes de la WG.
Y estamos convencidos de que el informe final refleja la optimización expectativas de la ALAC como nosotros los concebimos.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton Un Samuels Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y Turnaround * ============================= _______________________________________________
[[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/f3b9c3e777.html [1] --]]
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es[2]
Links: ------ [1]
http://tcgis.ibero-americano.org/parse.php?redirect=http://mm.icann.org/tra
nsbot_archive/f3b9c3e777.html[2]
http://tcgis.ibero-americano.org/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.i
cann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es[3]<http://cann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es%5B3%5D>
http://tcgis.ibero-americano.org/parse.php?redirect=http://www.lacralo.org
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .