RE: more Re: [alac] ICANN regions

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think that some of the problems of the ccTLD managers are the same one
that the Internet users have.
The travel for internet users representatives from Western Asia to Far East
vs. Europe is the one you give as example, but we even have one in the
accredited ALSes: ICOC Pacific Islands covers the internet community of a
large number of islands in the Pacific Ocean - hence the name ;>). The
problem is that some of these islands happen to be, in ICANN's definition,
belonging to Europe. Frank, who is the contact person for this ALS, is
himself living on a French DOM-TOM, and this situation could create a
serious problem, depending on how the Bylaws (or other organizational
documents) are written for EURALO and/or APRALO.

Regards,
Roberto Gaetano
ALAC
ICANN Board Liaison
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 16 October 2006 20:45
> To: Jean Armour Polly
> Cc: Hong Xue; Roberto Gaetano; ALAC -- ALAC
> Subject: Re: more Re: [alac] ICANN regions
> 
> I'm still trying to figure what meaningful questions can be 
> addressed to the at-large public about this matter. As a 
> ccTLD manager(my other hat) I've been questionning the ICANN 
> regional classification since its inception but the concerns 
> of a ccTLD manager are perhaps not immediately significant to 
> the public. For example, a ccTLD manager in Western Asia may 
> not be happy about having to travel 8 hours to an 
> Asia/Pacific meeting in Eastern Asia when he can travel only 
> 4 hours to a similar meeting in Europe. Further, he has been 
> getting his IPs from RIPE not APNIC since Internet started, 
> which makes the association technically cumbersome. I've 
> always thought that a regional classification along RIR lines 
> is more meaningful. But these mean little to the general 
> public even though they have their effect on indirect 
> representation in the ICANN process.
> Conclusion: Maybe we should just alert certified ALSs and 
> other at-large conduits to the existence of the questionnaire 
> and ask for opinions where any exist.
> Siavash
> 
> 
> > Hi Hong! (when are you coming to visit me, by the way???) 
> The idea I 
> > have is that we put the questions in the various languages 
> too. Then 
> > the ALS's can point people directly to the survey URL. We 
> should try 
> > it with one question.  I'll send you mail when I get home from work 
> > tonight!
> > JP
> >
> > At 11:56 AM +0800 10/16/06, Hong Xue recently said:
> >>Dear Mom,
> >>
> >>Sure, I can provide you the Chinese equivalences for  "Yes, 
> No, Don't 
> >>know, Tell us more". But the website is still in English interface.
> >>Would Chinese users be able to use it?
> >>
> >>Hong
> >>
> >>
> >>On 10/15/06, Jean Armour Polly <mom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  Also,  if native speakers could give me the questions in 
> languages 
> >>> other  than English, why couldn't those go on the same survey as 
> >>> another sentence  in the English question? I'd need 
> responses in the 
> >>> other languages too.
> >>>  (Yes, No, Don't know, Tell us more (for the free response-type 
> >>> questions).
> >>>  SurveyMonkey doesn't support Unicode yet.
> >>>  http://surveymonkey.com/
> >>>  SurveyMonkey says
> >>>  "We currently support almost all Western languages based 
> on Roman 
> >>> character  sets.  If you are unsure, try creating a simple one 
> >>> question survey as a  test.
> >>>  Currently, SurveyMonkey does not support multi-byte (Unicode) 
> >>> character sets  such as Japanese or Chinese.  This is a 
> feature we 
> >>> are working on adding  soon."
> >>>
> >>>  SurveyMonkey is the only one I've used, it does give 
> great results 
> >>> and it's  easy to drill into the responses. If someone else is 
> >>> familiar with another  survey tool, especially one that does 
> >>> Unicode-- let us know.
> >>>  JP
> >>>
> >>>  At 11:38 PM +0200 10/14/06, Roberto Gaetano recently said:
> >>>  Folks,
> >>>  This year a revision of the ICANN regions should take 
> place, since 
> >>> the last  one was done in Montreal, 2003, and according 
> to the ICANN 
> >>> Bylaws the  revision shall take place every 3 years.
> >>>  Although the matter has not come up in Board 
> discussions, I would 
> >>> expect a  decision to be taken in Sao Paulo.
> >>>  In view of this deadline, the ccNSO has launched a questionnaire
> >>>  (http://survey.icann.org/cgi/ccnso/) to poll the ccTLD  managers 
> >>> about their opinions.
> >>>  I wonder whether ALAC should open a similar discussion, 
> and gather 
> >>> Internet  user (and ALSes) input on the subject, in order 
> to present 
> >>> a position  reflecting consensus points, if any, and 
> Internet users 
> >>> concerns.
> >>>
> >>>  Regards,
> >>>  Roberto Gaetano
> >>>  ALAC
> >>>  ICANN Board Liaison
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> IPM/IRNIC
> P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq.
> Tehran 19548, Iran
> Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113
> Cell: (+98 912)104 2501
> Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00
> Email: shahshah@xxxxxxxx, shahshah@xxxxxx
> -----------------------------------------------