RE: [registrars] Ballot - remember to vote

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 06:46 10-02-2000 -0800, Josh Elliott wrote:
>The real issue you have brought up is a good one.  Efforts to adhere to the
>ICANN global diversity requirement seemed to be more based on ethinc
>diversity than regional diversity.   I don't know what the solution is, but
>complaining about the GAC and its influence on ICANN surely isn't it.  That
>argument is going nowhere fast.

Dear Josh:

Thanks for your reply.  I feel like I am crying in the wilderness.  But 
until I can energize like minded souls, I see nothing I can do but keep the 
issue before the eyes of the Constituencies.  Unfortunately, I have access 
only to the Registrars Constituency.

At the Berlin meeting, we came away with the IP Constituency permitted to 
have three NC delegates from North America.  The Registrars Constituency, 
though told by Louis that the regional diversity issue was not mandatory, 
insisted on maintaining it.  We duly elected residents of three 
regions.  After that, the "citizenship" issue raised its ugly head.

I think I should post my first analysis again, with the added insight of 
the existence of citizenship having connections to multiple ICANN regions 
(Brits in British Indian Ocean Territory, French in possessions along East 
Coast or North America and off Africa).

I think it should be obvious that *residency* in the region is far more 
significant than citizenship in the region.  Would we select a Japanese or 
Australian or Indonesian or etc. living in North America as an NC delegate 
for the AP region?  Certainly not.  In my mind, the GAC raised the 
citizenship issue out of an inherent xenophobic mind set of governmental 
operatives.  How many national governments do you know which employ 
resident alien staff and support employees -- even to pick up 
garbage.  Certainly some do.  However, in Japan, Korean nationals who have 
been born in Japan for three generations have difficulty getting such a 
job.  I could go on and on.  In fact, I have;-}

Please help me fine tune this appeal.

Personal regards, BobC