Re: [gnso-geo-dg] ICANN regions - quick history
- To: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-geo-dg] ICANN regions - quick history
- From: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:25:34 -0300
Reviewing the UN documents, there are approaches that divide America into
North America and Latin America and Caribbean (as for the Economic
Commissions for example), also in the referred document about UN Statistics
information there is a division in the Americas using this criteria:
Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical
sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings * **Geographical
region and composition*
001 *World* 002*
014* Eastern Africa*
017* Middle Africa*
015* Northern Africa*
018* Southern Africa*
011* Western Africa*
419* Latin America and the Caribbean*
013 *Central America*
005* South America*
021* Northern America
142* Asia <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#asia>*
143* Central Asia*
030* Eastern Asia*
034* Southern Asia*
035* South-Eastern Asia*
145* Western Asia*
150* Europe <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe>*
151* Eastern Europe*
154* Northern Europe*
039* Southern Europe*
155* Western Europe*
009* Oceania <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#oceania>*
053* Australia and New Zealand*
2008/8/7 Anthony Harris <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Although you make a valid point, I see some problems
> with this approach. Obviously the UN list is predicated
> on the territorial expanse concept of "continents", and
> thus Australia justifies "Oceania" as a region.
> The only problem is that as far as a reasonable distribution
> of stakeholders is concerned, essentially Australia and New
> Zealand would constitute one of the five regions, and in
> bundling Canada and the U.S. together with Latin America
> and the Caribbean, you come up with a huge imbalance
> with respect to Oceania...
> I beleive the geographic distribution as exemplified by the
> RIRs is a much more balanced approach.
> In the days when ICANN was being created, the Latin America
> region was very pro-active in insisting on their own region, and
> from this LACNIC emerged as a natural consequence. I am sure
> that any intent to bundle Latin America into a region with Canada
> and the U.S., will not be supported by people from this part of
> the world.
> Tony Harris
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
> *To:* gnso-geo-dg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:42 AM
> *Subject:* [gnso-geo-dg] ICANN regions - quick history
> Thanks Rob, for that useful set of links.
> It once again demonstrates a classic ICANN problem - and one entirely of
> its own making.
> *The problem*
> The Board back in 2000 and the GAC both agreed that ICANN should not be in
> the game of geo-political allocation but should use international norms and
> agreed upon the UN list.
> The Board told staff to do so.
> Unfortunately for everyone concerned the set of 5 ICANN regions had already
> been determined in the original 1998 bylaws:
> Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin America/Caribbean islands; Africa;
> North America.
> These regions were NOT the UN ones:
> Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe, Oceania
> So (rather than getting the Board to change the bylaws) staff went about
> allocating countries from the UN list to the regions determined by the
> author of ICANN's 1998 bylaws (a US lawyer who shall remain nameless).
> In so doing ICANN engaged in exactly the process it wanted to avoid -
> geo-political allocation.
> Hence the mess we are in identified in the CCSO report.
> *The solution*
> Amend the bylaws to update ICANN's 5 regions to the 5 UN ones.