[AfrICANN-discuss] RE: [cctld-discuss] Reminder comments on Draft
Report WG ICANNRegions
vika at zadna.org.za
Thu May 24 11:22:12 SAST 2007
Fully supported, Paulos...
It's fair for the ICANN regions to be re-considered in the case of clear
"discrepancies" such as Cayman Islands. But what I find quite confusing is
the view I've heard in past 2 ICANN meetings (Sao Paulo & Lisbon) advocated
by some who truly seem to be using Africa to support further ICANN regions
It's fine to speak of the "Arab" region spreading across Africa & the Middle
East, but that simply is no ground to say Arab Africa states want to "move"
from Africa to form an Arab region. What's amazing is none of the Arab
African states has ever said anything about forming a (new) Arab region. To
the contrary, most Arab African states we (as Aftld excom) have spoken to do
not at all support any "split" of Africa. In particular, Morocco (.ma) &
Egypt (.eg) were clear enough to say they were not necessarily in support of
"leaving" Africa to form another region. But I don't mean to speak on their
behalf on this matter; I stand to be corrected by them.
What I think is fair is for the people who are not in the affected regions
to stop speaking on behalf of those they presume to be interested in forming
new ICANN regions.
Arab Africa can speak for itself - they do not need to spoken for. It's
highly possible that if we could have a closer look at who exactly is behind
the idea of moving Arab Africa out of Aftld, you are likely to find out that
most (if not all) of them are neither in Africa nor in the Middle East.
AfTLD Secretary & Treasurer
From: cctld-discuss-bounces+vika=zadna.org.za at wwtld.org
[mailto:cctld-discuss-bounces+vika=zadna.org.za at wwtld.org] On Behalf Of Dr
Sent: 24 May 2007 08:46
To: cctld-discuss at wwtld.org; africann at afrinic.net;
aftld-discuss at ole.kenic.or.ke
Cc: ccnsosecretariat at icann.org
Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] Reminder comments on Draft Report WG
We are aware that Africa is not the problem on this regions issue but there
is no doubt that she will be part of the solution. We would like to see that
Africa is not used as firewood to forge the solution on this regions issue.
On 23 May 2007 at 11:40, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> > 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.
> Actually, AFRICA is not the problem. Ignoring .NA for a minute (I
> know that's hard!), some regions of the world do cross geographcial
> The Arab region is one, and has constituent parts in Africa (the
> Magrheb, N. Africa) as well as in other "Regions".
> Cultural diversity demands that ICANN /must/ take account of the
> legitimate aspirations of /all/ groupings, not just those which fit
> into an American neo-colonial viewpoint.
> It's actually quite offensive for ICANN, for example, to insist that
> the Caymans, Turks and Caicos and Monsterrat are in Europe, even if
> did allow the gerrymandering launce of the ccNSO. (NB. I'm not
> attacking the current ccNSO, just the process by which it was
> launched, where two of the five founding menbers of the European
> region were microstates, one not even in Europe).
> If the Channel Islands weren't geographically in Europe, but were
> forced to be becuase of a consitutional link to the UK, we'd not be happy.
> I think the old ccTLD constituency idea of self-organising grouping
> was an extremely good one .. that way there could be Oceania as a
> distinct entitity for example, or a world=wide region of 'tiny states'
> which have more in common with each other...
> (Lights touchpaper and stands back).
More information about the AfrICANN