ICANN Regional Definition Depresses Participation, Representation, Critics Say
ICANN’s definition of geographical regions keeps some nations from participating fully in ICANN processes, a country-code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) working group is preparing to tell the Internet body. ICANN’s decision to create its own regions rather than adopting those defined by the U.N. or other international bodies rankles some country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) managers who believe they belong to other areas. Possible solutions include allowing such ccTLDs to self-select their regions and urging ICANN to align its definitions with the U.N.’s.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
At issue is confusion about the definition and its role in discouraging smaller countries with limited resources from participating actively in ICANN, the group said. The report cited ccTLD managers in the Middle East defined as being part of the Asian/Australian/Pacific Region but also deemed part of Europe for purposes of allocating Internet Protocol numbers. If a Middle Easterner is elected to the ccNSO Council or the ICANN board, what region would he or she represent?
Representation is also a problem, since ccNSO Council candidates must be nominated, seconded and voted on by members from within a region, the draft said. Candidates must make the rounds of ICANN and regional meetings to gain support, difficult to do from thousands of miles away.
“Groups of countries that have strong affinity because of culture, language, political affiliation, etc., could find that their regional representative, elected by other interests, does not adequately reflect their views,” the group wrote. Entire local Internet communities seeking to participate in ICANN make huge trips only to find “little shared interest with members of the ‘home’ region” or wind up at regional meetings where they don’t speak the language and have no official recognition, the report said.
ICANN’s classification has led to peculiar groupings, ccTLDs said. The Cayman Islands, physically in the Western Caribbean, are a British crown colony. The U.N. Statistics Office places them in Latin America/Caribbean, but ICANN bylaws put them in Europe, David Archbold, managing dir. of the .ky Information & Communications Technology Authority and working group chmn., said in Nov., commenting on ICANN’s geographical regions review. Other ICANN groupings put the islands with N. America; Archbold’s ICANN regional liaison officer covers Canada and the Caribbean, he said.
Automatically lumping nations with mother countries is one reason the issue came up, said (.ca) Canadian Internet Registration Authority Pres. Bernard Turcotte. That “pissed a lot of people off,” he said in an interview. Arab nations have sought an Arab region of the ccNSO, horrifying those at ccTLDs who fear creating regions based on language, religion or the like, Turcotte said.
The ICANN board reaffirmed its regional allocation method in 2000 and again in 2003, but its bylaws require review every 3 years. The scheme also applies to the board, Generic Names Supporting Council and At-Large Advisory Committee. CcTLD concerns weren’t aired until the ccNSO formed, ICANN said upon launching its latest review in Nov.
It’s “fair” to rethink the ICANN regions in the case of clear “discrepancies” like the Caymans, said Vika Mpisane, secy. of the African Top Level Domains Organization (AfTLD). But some appear to be “using Africa to support further ICANN regions’ redemarcation,” he said.
It makes sense to “speak of the ‘Arab’ region spreading across Africa and the Middle East, but that simply is no ground to say Arab African states want to ‘move’ from Africa to form an Arab region,” Mpisane said. Moreover, “none of the Arab African states has ever said anything about forming a new Arab region,” he said. Most such nations AfTLD has contacted oppose splitting Africa, he said.
The draft offers options for ICANN and the ccNSO. The board can adopt a resolution properly authorizing the status quo on geographical regions -- a tough task, since ICANN then would have to explain why it resisted the UN definition -- or approve new or revised regions.
The working group said the ccNSO has 4 choices: (1) Do nothing, and lose the chance at input into ICANN’s regions review. (2) Design a new structure, though a better way would be to suggest alternate regional structures. (3) Make minor, short-term modifications, such as allowing a ccTLD to pick its region for ccNSO purposes or facilitating emergence of sub- or inter-regional groups. (4) Prepare a submission for ICANN’s review. The group recommended number 4.
For a quick fix, Archbold favors letting territories choose the region they want to join, followed by a broader debate on the more complex question of changing the regions, he told ICANN. Most ccNSO members get the pros and cons of territories’ concerns, Turcotte said, calling their view, “Why don’t we let those concerned choose?”
Turcotte opposes informally grouping interests to form sub-regions, he said. Many will interpret such a move to mean, “OK, this is done, move on,” he said; others will be given false hope of a more formal structure. It’s a “touchy, emotional issue,” Turcotte said.
The U.N. has set a standard for creating regions, said Turcotte. ICANN made the mistake of not using it, so if its regional definition is to change, it should be to adopt the U.N.’s, he said. The working group plans to solicit public input on its report at the ICANN meeting later this month in Puerto Rico.