ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

AFNIC comment about regions

  • To: geo-regions-comments@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: AFNIC comment about regions
  • From: Olivier Guillard / AFNIC <Olivier.Guillard@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:14:38 +0200

This is an AFNIC comment on Draft Report about ICANN Regions:

General comment :

AFNIC supports NORID's comments and concerns posted on ccTLD
lists, which do not seem to have been fully taken into account
in the report at this stage. It is worth highlighting that
regional TLD organisations such as CENTR, APTLD,  LACTLD, etc.
do not necessarily rely on the ICANN regions definition. It
does not seem necessary for instance to the .gp (Guadeloupe)
manager to join CENTR to participate in such an organisation.


ICANN is "seeking and supporting broad participation reflecting
the geographic diversity of the Internet". Therefore, ICANN
internal bodies or processes may rely on the definition of
regions, such as the RALO, the ccNSO, or the rules adopted by
the Nomminating Commitee does. The definion of region also
impacts on relations with regional organisations participating
to the ICANN process.

It is unclear whether the objectives of the Geographical Regions
Working Group are to increase  geographic diversity or to achieve
better representation and participation of ccTLD managers from
"small" TLDs.
Both are legitimate concerns in our opinion, but trying to achieve
the latter through the definition of geographic regions does not
seem appropriate.

Options :

The option consisting in defining the ICANN regions according to 
international norms has not been enough discussed (see for example
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm). It seems
worth considering, although it does not solve the issue of small
TLD representation, since it would at least make things much
simpler and avoid outside challenges of the regions definition.

Recommendation :

At this stage, AFNIC would recommend that ccNSO weighs the pros
and cons of all options, and gives further examination to the
objectives it is pursuing through this work. The GAC also needs
to be given enough  material and time to examine the issue. It
is in fact a critical success factor that actual support (not
only silence) is obtained from the GAC  before any submission
to the Board is engaged.

Best regards,

Olivier Guillard
On behalf of AFNIC

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy