[NCUC-DISCUSS] 2017 ICANN Meetings

Wed Mar 16 21:34:20 CET 2016

Oh, thanks for sharing that, James. How timely!
Has the NCSG or NCUC already drafted a response to the final report
recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group? If not, I'm
happy to take the lead here and to draft something up for others to add to.
I've only skim read a few of the recommendations and some seem slightly
problematic to me, especially the idea that dependent overseas territories
belong to the same region as their home country, unless their mother country
agrees otherwise. I am sure that is something the GAC supports but that makes
our outreach efforts harder. I already see this being an issue in San Juan. Puerto Ricans might be US citizens but their native language and culture varies
from that of the mainland USA. By ICANN's arbitrary definition of North America
the region has a very small number of members relative to other regions (8, to
Asia/Pacific's 73), yet it is still guaranteed one director and a
disproportionate amount of ALAC resources. If Puerto Rico was considered a part
of Latin America and the Caribbean, we could bring those from the hispanosphere
together and have outreach activities in a language that most from that region
would be comfortable communicating in. But we won't be doing that. If the
meeting in San Juan goes ahead, we'll mainly be bringing those from the US and
Canada to Puerto Rico. Of course we need to do outreach there, too, but I've
heard a few people now say this meeting will - by virtue of being in a
Spanish-speaking territory - be a form of Latin American outreach. I just don't
see how that is the case. By all means have a meeting in San Juan and if we can
get additional language support there, great, but I would like it to be
acknowledged that this is a North American meeting which will mainly be bringing
together native English speakers, and is not a LatAm surrogate.
I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue for ICANN to deal with — it is much
easier to defer to a 3rd party's definition of what constitutes a geographical
region than to get into the tricky business of defining sovereignty and state
self-determination (though I think ICANN already that did in assigning the .cat
TLD to Catalonia in 2005) — but given how the geographic regions impact all of
ICANN's outreach activities I think we should make it clear to the Working Group
how harmful or limiting these arbitrary groupings of countries can be.
Best wishes,
Ayden

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:46 PM, James Gannon < james at cyberinvasion.net > wrote:
https://www.icann.org/news/ announcement-3-2015-12-23-en
Of interest to this discussion I would think

-James
From: Ncuc-discuss < ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists. ncuc.org > on behalf of Renata Aquino Ribeiro < raquino at gmail.com >
Date: Wednesday 16 March 2016 at 7:39 p.m.
To: Ayden Férdeline < icann at ferdeline.com >
Cc: NCUC-discuss < ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org >
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] 2017 ICANN Meetings

Hi

Ayden, thank you for unmasking how bizarre and random regional groups are. Not
only in ICANN's grouping but so many other important IG venues, who do not
really see us for who we are in the LAC region but for artifically connected
borders made by governmental and economical powers who do not represent us.

Remote hubs have been an option in LAC. A few local surprises hit hard
especially those in universities in last ICANN meetings. Those are the places w/
connectivity but they to depend on immunity to local political turmoils (which
hit Venezuela) and agreement w/ federal structures (case of Brazil). Still, we
keep on trying. We accept whatever we can get and props to Alyne Andrade and
Mark Datysgeld for doing independent courses on IG w/ ICANN in Brazil.

On that note, São Paulo/Rio de Janeiro are different worlds altogether in LAC.
There you'll find CGI.br, ITS/FGV-RJ, USP just to name a few. They will likely
have heavy remote participation already in ICANN mtgs. Also, transportation
isn't an issue.

A hub in the Amazon region, however, would be a first and it is quite a nice
idea to entertain but very out of the box, considering our online engagement is
primarily via mobile.

As for the future of LAC engagement and the mtgs calendar, I can only wonder.

Bill, thanks for letting us know that staff is studying about Puerto Rico and
its possibilities. Please keep us posted. Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya are
terrible illnesses, cyclical epidemics and we keep repeating here that they have
to be prevented rather than putting out the fire only when the media sees it.

All the best

Renata

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Ayden Férdeline < icann at ferdeline.com > wrote:
Hi, all-
The next meeting to be held in Latin America will be a small B-format meeting in
2018. I do think that it is unfortunate that it was not possible to switch this
with the large A-format meeting in Copenhagen next year. However, maybe you
Renata (or you could suggest this to people you know) could request funding from
ICANN's Development & Public Responsibility Programs budget to establish a
remote hub in São Paulo or elsewhere in the region so to make it easier for
those unable to travel to the meeting to participate? I know it's no substitute
for attending a meeting, but I think you could have some success finding funding
here…
Also - I'm not sure I understood why the meeting that had originally been
scheduled for Panama City was being classed as a Latin American meeting, given
Panama is geographically a part of North America? Likewise with the meeting in
San Juan? I too hope that San Juan remains the home of ICANN 57, but I don't see
how this being the case is going to help any Argentines, Brazilians, Bolivians,
Ecuadorians etc participate in outreach programs (which are region-specific)
given how bizarrely it seems ICANN groups countries into regions?
Best wishes,
Ayden
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Karel Douglas < douglaskarel at gmail.com > wrote:
The LAC region has lost out and I hope that there will some amends somewhere /
somehow.
regards
Karel
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:56 AM, William Drake < wjdrake at gmail.com > wrote:
Hi
It’s unclear whether Puerto Rico will be a problem, not only because of Zika,
but also Chikungunya, which is pretty serious. http://www.salud.gov.pr/ Sobre-tu-Salud/Pages/ Condiciones/Chikungunya.aspx Meeting staff will research etc. Hopefully it’s under control by then...
Bill
On Mar 13, 2016, at 19:38, Renata Aquino Ribeiro < raquino at gmail.com > wrote:
Hi Seun

Thanks for the information about the block allocations.
I'd be one thinking that EOI would also be a good idea.
Criteria for selection could be refined from the replies.

Regards,

Renata

Em 13/03/2016 15:31, "Seun Ojedeji" < seun.ojedeji at gmail.com > escreveu:
Hi,

I believe the meeting locations were already predetermined so it was not
realistic to change as suggested. As you may know, call to host ICANN meetings
are done in block (I think it's 2 years period) and countries who expressed
interest during the application window would have been reviewed and selected. In
a situation where the meeting venue changes due to unforeseen circumstances, it
becomes a plus for any other region that has a country willing to host at such
short notice (while still meeting the hosting requirements).

It's usually a difficult one but that is what it is. Personally, I would have
preferred that ICANN open a short call for EOI when such happens so other
countries in that particular region affected could express their interest.
(Although I don't know if it would have helped in this case since the Zika stuff
is considered continental)

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 13 Mar 2016 12:38 a.m., "Ayden Férdeline" < icann at ferdeline.com > wrote:
Hi, all-
The locations for ICANN Meetings in 2017 have been posted: https://meetings.icann.org/en/ calendar
ICANN58 is in Copenhagen, ICANN59 is in Johannesburg, and ICANN60 is in Abu
Dhabi.
It appears that ICANN57 will remain in San Juan. I'm a little surprised that
ICANN58 is going to Europe rather than Latin America, given the change of
location of the Panama City meeting…
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
______________________________ _________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

______________________________ _________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

______________________________ _________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

****************************** ****************************** *
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
www.williamdrake.org The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections New book at https://www.apc.org/en/WGIG
****************************** ****************************** *

______________________________ _________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

______________________________ _________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest
______________________________ _________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160316/d5bd706d/attachment-0002.html>