[AfrICANN-discuss] Re: Reminder comments on Draft Report WG ICANN
Dr Yassin Mshana
ymshana2003 at gmail.com
Wed May 23 12:25:30 SAST 2007
Can I jump in? I am not a ccAnything - I am just a User.
This piece of discussion is very important to be concluded soon other wise
valuable time will be wasted. I am sorry I have to be 'blunt' just like
tone used in this exchange. I think it is obvious that it has been agreed
upon which way forward as per the reminder by the .mw TLD manager.
It took more than a Year to concur on a Global Policy on ccTLD and its
implementation is going well. It seems that there are new findings which are
contrary to the agreement such as lack of confidence as exhibited in this
discussion. But why?
On 23/05/07, Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> wrote:
> On 22 May 2007 at 20:43, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
> > Personally I am opposed to the very concept of geographic regions in the
> > ICANN concept. They are as necessary as a goitre if only because the
> > relationship between (cc)TLD and IANA/ICANN is bilateral.
> El, does this also mean that you are opposed to the concept of
> requiring regional diversity in the ICANN concept?
> Many of us in the Africa region value the regions issue and this is
> supported by activities on AfriNIC, AfNOG and AfTLD among others.
> > I don't mind .NA being in the African region.
> Great. .NA is already in the Africa region.
> > But unfortunately there is
> > a tendency to make a Region out of a region, here, and since I have no
> > interest whatsoever being "represented" by individuals that I would
> > trust as far as I can throw them, so I do not wish .NA to belong to the
> > African Region.
> My understanding is that by running .NA, those in the .NA Internet
> community are already being "represented" by an individual like you.
> Do you think that they trust you?
> Do you wish .NA to be in Namibia?
> > My obvious choice of course is Northern America, not only because .NA
> > and NA are so similar, but also because there are so few ccTDLs there,
> > so Dotty and I can have lunch more often :-)-O
> I wish I had a smiley for this that draws enough contours on my face
> to show my true expression.
> It is very UNLIKELY that the obvious choice of the .NA Internet
> community is "of course is Northern America" for whatever reason
> anyone can put down.
> > But seriously, I also think the Arab speaking ccTLDs have a point,
> > wanting to have an Arab region rather than being "born" into Africa or
> > Australasia.
> The African Top Level Domains organisation, AFTLD, has taken a stand
> on this issue which we communicated to the ccNSO just before and
> during the Lisbon ICANN meeting, where, I am pleased to note, you
> actively participated in the ccNSO activitites.
> AFTLD, officiall recognised by the ccNSO, is the regional
> organisation for Africa where Namibia is located.
> Members of AFTLD are gravely concerned that the regions issue may
> lead to partitioning of Africa and members have indicated that they
> will act to oppose any such re-partitioning of the Africa region.
> Africa has a signifcant membership base in the ccNSO. Members aspire
> that Africa continues to be represented by one continent
> organisations like AfriNIC, AfNOG and AfTLD.
> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
> .mw ccTLD
> > If we actually *NEED* groups or regions, then I think the best way of
> > doing things would be to define a minimum number of members for
> > "accreditation", perhaps 10 to 15 and if one ccTLD doesn't want to stay
> > in it's region, to chose a group. This would immediately elevate CENTR
> > and probably CoCCA into such a group.
> > So the answer is 42 :-)-O
> > Or rather Yes to I and II.
> > el
> > on 5/22/07 5:25 PM Gabriella Schittek said the following:
> > > To recapture the opinion of the Working Group: The current definition
> > > a ICANN Geographic Region is not only confusing to the individual, it
> > > may make it more difficult - particularly for ccTLD managers from
> > > smaller countries with limited resources - to actively participate and
> > > be engaged in different aspects of ICANN.
> > >
> > > To resolve the negative impact of the current definition of Geographic
> > > Regions to these ccTLD managers the Working Group recommends:
> > > 1. To prepare a ccNSO submission to ICANNs Regions review process (See
> > > Draft Report Section C, Option 4); and
> > >
> > > 2.As a short-mid term solution:
> > > a.the ccNSO should define a procedure for self-selection to enable
> > > managers who consider themselves inappropriately assigned to an ICANN
> > > Geographical Region on the basis of the so-called "citizenship"
> > > criterion (see Draft Report WG on ICANNs Geographic Regions nr.8), to
> > > self-select an appropriate Region; and
> > > b.facilitate the creation of sub-regional or interregional groups (see
> > > Report Section C options 3a and 3b).
> > >
> > >
> > > The Working Group would appreciate input from ccTLD managers on the
> > > following questions:
> > >
> > > I. Do the concerns as described in Section C of the report adequately
> > > represent the concerns of ccTLD managers? If not, please indicate what
> > > needs to change.
> > >
> > > II. Do you support the recommendation of the Working Group? If not,
> > > please indicate if you support any of the other options.
> > --
> > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> > el at lisse.NA el108-ARIN / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> > PO Box 8421 \ / Please do NOT email to this address
> > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ if it is DNS related in ANY way
> AfrICANN mailing list
> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
No. 10 Bobo Street
Skype: yassin mshana
Mobile: +234-803 970 5117
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the AfrICANN