Izumi AIZU wrote:
> But I want to state that the geographic diversity has been very much
> the consensus from last year's IFWP process,
Only in an "aspirational" sense. We have never agreed that this form of
diversity should be imposed if it will frustrate other forms, as is the case
with the current proposal.
> and, though I admit
> it is technically difficult to adopt with complex structure of SOs and
> at large members, the central principle should be well preserved.
At what cost?
> I think this is very much the core of 'fair, open and global' nature
> that White Paper (unlike Green Paper) called, and many people
> like us, outside North America, say from Asia and Pacific, Latin America
> and Afirca are trying to implement.
It could be to the contrary if it eliminates proportional representation of
the various interests.
> Also please remember that many people who are not English native
> have been relatively quiet, but that does not mean that they all agree.
Exactly the point. Just because you are from Japan does not make you the
better representative for a Japanese (or Indian or Australian) member of
ICNN than Onno Hovers or Jim Dixon.
