Thank you, Marília, for sharing the timeline with the mailing list.
I have now edited our draft statement, adding in comments from Jean-Jacques and
others, and tightening some of our recommendations. If you have any comments or edits, please make them today. Our draft statement is here ; the Working Group's final report is here .
I will close this Google Doc for comments at 23:59 UTC today to give the Policy
Committee sufficient time to review our statement and supporting documentation.
This is because the deadline for submitting comments - if it is decided to do so
- on this report is 24 April.
A few comments from my end:
Paragraph 11 - do we support it? I wrote it initially and have edited it again
today, but I still find it problematic. How can we ensure 'fairness' in the
allocation of power and resources? And could this actually be
counter-productive, harming our outreach and engagement efforts? I wrote it
initially because I thought Asia-Pacific (with 73 members, to North America's 8)
was getting a raw deal, but as Milton noted in the comments, “the fact that NA
has a small number of large countries is not a problem, especially given that
population-wise it is similar to Europe.”
Paragraph 14? I consider Recommendation F of the Final Report to be an
unsubstantiated claim, but is our response appropriate? Maybe the phrasing isn't
diplomatic enough.
Paragraph 5 - A commenter seems to reject my argument, and they might have a
point, so if someone would like to reword this paragraph, please go ahead.
Paragraph 19 - I originally made the bold claim here that the Board would be
behaving in a self-serving manner if Recommendation K was adopted. When I
re-read the Final Report this morning, I didn't have any objections to
Recommendation K and thought it seemed reasonable. Could someone please look
over this and provide a second opinion?
Thank you, again, for sharing your inputs on this work, and do get in touch if
you have any questions, comments, or concerns. I also encourage you to edit the
document directly so that your arguments are accurately captured.
Best wishes,
Ayden

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 3:49 PM, Marilia Maciel [log in to unmask] wrote:
Dear all,
Following what was discussed in our NCSG call today, we will discuss this draft
on the next days with the goal to achieve a stable version. This version will be
then taken to the Policy Committee for deliberation with regards to potential
NCSG endorsement. The proposed timeline will be:
- Until 16/03 11:59 UTC: Please make your final comments to the draft. Try to
propose concrete text directly to the document (tracking changes) and with the
goal of gravitating the group towards consensus. - Until 17/03 11:59 UTC: Ayden and PC co-chairs will clean the document and
introduce it to the PC. - Until 22/03 11:59 UTC: PC deliberation - 23/03 - PC co-chairs send the comment, if there is agreement
I hope it works for everyone.
Thanks! Marília
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
Hello Ayden,

"How to become a GAC member" is easily located on the GAC website and has been
presented and discussed on multiple occasions at the ICANN Fellowship morning
sessions. See below for convenience:

Best wishes,

Tracy

----

New GAC members are always most welcome.

ICANN relies on its Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) for guidance and
advice to the ICANN Board on public policy aspects of ICANN's work, particularly
with regard to the Internet's domain name system.

The GAC has 162 governments as Members and 35 Intergovernmental Organizations
(IGOs) as Observers. Membership is open to all national governments and distinct
economies. There are no membership fees or charges.

Eligibility

Members of the GAC must be national governments, multinational governmental
organisations and treaty organisations, or public authorities.

Each may appoint one representative and one alternate representative to the GAC.
The accredited representative of a Member may be accompanied by advisers.

The accredited representative, alternate and advisers must hold a formal
official position with the Member’s public administration. The term ‘official’
includes a holder of an elected governmental office or a person who is employed
by such government, public authority or multinational governmental or treaty
organisation, and whose primary function with such government, public authority
or organisation is to develop or influence governmental or public policies.

For further details about the membership rules, please refer to Article IV of
the GAC Operating Principles: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Operating+Principles .

Exchange of Letters

In order to become a member of the GAC you must:

Send a signed letter, on official letterhead, addressed to the GAC Chair. A
sample letter is provided over the page.State the name and full contact details
of the appointed GAC Representative. The letter may also inform GAC leadership
of a designated alternate Representative and of any designated
Advisors.Electronically scan the letter and attach it to an email. Send the
email to [log in to unmask]

The request will be reviewed by the GAC Chair and Vice Chairs.

Once the request has been approved, the person or persons designated as
representatives will be added to the GAC e-mail list, and be provided with
access to the Members Only part of the GAC website.





Sample Letter

[Official Letterhead]



Mr. Thomas Schneider

Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers



Re: Membership request and nomination of GAC representative(s) on behalf of
[national government]



Dear Mr. Schneider,



The [ministry, department or agency] is the national authority of [country or
distinct economy with two-letter code xx] that looks after matters related to
Internet governance, including those under the purview of ICANN. The [ministry,
department or agency] formally requests membership to participate in ICANN’s
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and is pleased to appoint [GAC
Representative name (s)] as the representative(s) on behalf of [national
government].



Please find the relevant point(s) of contact information below:



Prefix or Title:

First name:

Last Name:

Job Title:

Employer:

Email:

Phone:

Phone 2:



Sincerely,

[Letter to be signed by relevant government minister or senior official with
lead responsibility for ICANN/GAC issues as designated by the requesting
national government]



****************

Translations:

How to become a GAC member - AR

How to become a GAC member - ES

How to become a GAC member - FR

How to become a GAC member - PT

How to become a GAC member - RU

How to become a GAC member - ZH


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 5:41 AM Ayden Férdeline < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
Thank you, all, for your comments.
I think we are diverging away both from the recommendations of the Working Group
and from its remit when it was initiated by the Board. My understanding is that
the Working Group has been asked to work on a classification framework that
assigns countries and territories to regions in a consistent manner. It has not been asked to enter geopolitical debates. Instead, the
Working Group was told to direct its focus to the criteria for assigning
countries, dependencies and recognised geopolitical entities as defined by ISO 3166 to a Geographic Region.
I don't think it is useful for us to get bogged down looking at hypothetical
situations which seem so utterly remote that we can only think of one example.
That is not to say these issues do not need to be examined - but I don't think
this consultation response is the place to be doing so.
If you disagree, I very much welcome you editing the draft statement. I am happy
to acknowledge I am not an expert on this topic and I have learned a lot from
the feedback the community has shared with me over the past two weeks. If I am
not accurately reflecting or capturing your views in our statement, that's not
okay and I apologise. Please add your thoughts directly into the shared file.
I'd like to comment briefly on a few of the last emails to this thread:
Renata wrote, “ if a region presents its case of reasons to join the ICANN ecosystem
independently and the community finds there is merit in such case, it should be
considered. ” I absolutely agree. ICANN should be acting in accordance with the community's
wishes and recognising new regions as seen as merited by the community. “ Could the Sahara be a region? Or the Amazon? It is unlikely the needs of these
places are being addressed by their states, could acknowledging them as special
regions present a way out? ” Yes, I would think so.
Ed suggested that we define a state as being, “ national governments and distinct economies that have been granted membership
in the GAC ”. I respectfully disagree. Why is the GAC the ultimate decision-making body
here? I am more receptive to the terminology proposed by Jean-Jacques (“ states and other collective entities ”) as it is will not lead to any Pareto inferior outcomes.
I'll also confess I was not aware that Taiwan had GAC representation, so thank
you for correcting the record, Ed. I should have done my research there. Simply
for my own knowledge - might you be able to expand, Ed, on how new members can
join the GAC? Why is Taiwan a member but not Kosovo when it is recognised as a
sovereign state by 3 times as many countries as Taiwan is? In trying to answer
this question myself, I found this page on ICANN's website which outlines how Montenegro gained a country code in 2006,
noting that, “ By strictly adhering to the ISO 3166-1 standard, we ensure that ICANN remains
neutral by relying upon a widely recognised and impartial international
standard. ” This seems very appropriate, to me, for a technical coordination body. I do
not understand why we would want ICANN to become involved in questions of what
constitutes a sovereign entity...
Many thanks for all your inputs,
Ayden

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 9:01 AM, Michael Oghia [log in to unmask] wrote:
Ayden,
As far as my understanding of ICANN's EMEA region is concerned, while there is
not a distinct "Middle East" geographic region (the EMEA is divided into
European, African, and Asian regions), Baher -- who is VP for the Middle East --
engages in very important work throughout the region in conjunction with the
Istanbul office as well as ICANN staff such as Fahd. They engage specifically
with Arabic-speaking and other Middle Eastern stakeholders (e.g., Turkey, Iran).
This, in some ways, is a district regional categorization.
If anyone knows more, feel free to expand.
Best,
-Michael __________________
Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey Journalist & editor 2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter | LinkedIn
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
I share Edward's concerns, and offer a few comments:

1) In the ICANN ecosystem, the GAC is the (only) place where states are
represented as such. It follows, therefore, that we should do nothing that would
weaken the current arrangements within the GAC, where (to take the example
mentioned by Edward) both Beijing and Taipei are fully represented.

2) The question of "geographic regions" within ICANN needs to be viewed in the
wider context of geo-strategic realities, with its complexities and
inadequacies. In this respect, one of the most striking developments in recent
years has been a growing convergence between states built on widely different
political models, with regard to fundamental rights. Take the trend towards mass
surveillance: the revelations by Edward Snowden in 2014 have shown to what
extent a well-established democracy is, in fact, engaging in practices which
have been (rightly) criticized in theocracies and single-party autocracies. I
have called this a "regrettable convergence",
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130826_global_surveillance_towards_convergence/

3) The Internet is still, to some extent, a preserved area of liberty, freedom
of expression, human rights. It is important for our communities to be aware of
the current threats and future perils, and that they help preserve, at least in
the narrow area of their volunteer engagement in ICANN, the principles of
freedom, democratic representation, diversity, fairness.

4) Specifically, what can we add to the current debate about "geographic areas"
in ICANN? Several points deserve our attention:
- Using the word "state" as a blanket definition is dangerous, as the
translation thereof would be left mostly in the hands of states. If we were to
choose, say, "region" (diqu 地区 or quyu 区域), no one could stop a state from
translating that into "guojia 国家", which in that language refers to the
government，the administration, the state. That would then open the door to
fatwas of exclusion.
- On this thread, it has been suggested that the term "special interest group"
could be applied also to some geographic regions. In my view, this is also
dangerous as it would give credence to a state that does not accept the
autonomous existence of another entity: you would have 2 distinct categories,
states with full status, and "special interest groups" with an inferior status.
- I suggest that we promote the term "states and other collective entities",
which would cover sovereign states, regions, including states challenged by
other states.
- As "geographic regions" is being discussed also in other parts of ICANN,
including ALAC, I am copying this email to Tijani Ben Jemaa, who is active in
that area.

Jean-Jacques.








----- Mail original -----
De: "Edward Morris" < [log in to unmask] >
À: [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Mercredi 13 Avril 2016 20:46:17
Objet: Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Working Group Report -
NCSG Response


Ayden,

Here are the facts:

1. Taiwan IS a full member of the GAC under the name "Chinese Tapei".

2. Hong Kong is a member of the GAC under the name "Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, China"

Both of these entities are assigned to the Asian Pacific region.

In the report that is under consideration the word "state" is used repeatedly.
My fear is if what I understand you are proposing the NCSG to ask for:
rearranging our geographic locations in part because of culture, language and
other concerns, is approved, additional regions are created with only "states"
being able to request reassignment as to to the region of their desire.

Here's my hypothetical problem: A region called Greater China is created. Taiwan
and Hong Kong are placed within China Region rather than, say, within a region
that contained South Korea or Japan. The people of Taiwan , in this scenario,
could very well be placed in a region they don't want to be in. What if their
request for a change was opposed by Beijing under the claim Taiwan is not a
state? What if Taiwan were placed in a region away from Beijing and Beijing
requested their reassignment within that region.. Your solution:

my understanding is that under the proposed new framework either the GAC or a
ministerial-level official from the People's Republic of China would need to
request that the Republic of China be treated as a unitary state.

?I repeat: Taiwan is already a member of the GAC. Have you told them that?
Beijing has absolutely no say in who represents Taiwan in ICANN. Next month Tsai
Ing-wen takes office as the President of the Republic of China. There is likely
to be a change in Taiwan's representation within the GAC and, if my contacts are
to be believed, Taiwan's role here will be greatly upgraded as the individual to
be appointed is a former Ambassador of the RoC (and a personal friend).

I should note that I reject your comparisons to Scotland and Spain. If you
believe that Taiwan is a de facto part of the Peoples Republic I'd encourage you
to try to enter Taipei with a visa from the PRC. You'll be escorted to the next
flight home. Not true in the other regions. I also note that 22 nations of this
world recognise the Republic of China as the proper government for all of China
and do not recognise the Peoples Republic of China, including the Holy See
(which is also a GAC member).

Let me further note that Panama recognises Taiwan and not Beijing as the proper
governing unit for China. One of the sad parts of the cancellation of our Panama
meeting is that a conference I had been working to present in cooperation with
the Embassy of the Republic of China to Panama entitled "Online free speech in
Asia" will not now take place.

I do agree with you Ayden when you write " it does not seem to me that ICANN is
the right forum to be holding these debates". Which is why 'state' needs to be
replaced as a term. Or perhaps during a rescheduled meeting in Panama the
Taiwanese government can claim to have the jurisdiction to ask that China be
placed in the African region. On what basis would ICANN say no to that? In
Panama Taiwan has legal jurisdiction to represent ALL of China.

?I would suggest the term 'state' be replaced by "national governments and
distinct economies that have been granted membership in the GAC" or that state
can be defined elsewhere in the document as being such. This is the exact
definition used for creating membership eligibility for the GAC. I'd suggest we
should make this request in our public comment in order to avoid potential
conflict down the road.

Personally, because of the many complications involved in changing the regional
structures I do not believe this is something ICANN should do at the current
transitionary time. I will likely be a "no" vote when the public comment comes
before the Policy Committee for approval. That said, I do believe the word
'state' creates such danger when applied in this manner I will be submitting my
own personal comment during the open period on that single matter.

Thanks again for your hard work on this Ayden.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris



From : "Ayden Férdeline" < [log in to unmask] >
Sent : Wednesday, April 13, 2016 6:31 PM
To : [log in to unmask]
Subject : Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Working Group Report
- NCSG Response


Hi Ed and Stephanie,

Thanks for your inputs here.

The question of Taiwan is a difficult one. Regardless of whether one supports
Chinese reunification or Taiwanese independence, it does not seem to me that
ICANN is the right forum to be holding these debates.

I took a look at APEC to see how they deal with Taiwan, and some academics have
said it is recognised through a “policy of deliberate ambiguity.” The Working
Group, in its final report, has recommended that ICANN respect State sovereignty
while also offering the right to self-determination. Staff have not drafted
guidelines on how this might be implemented but my understanding is that under
the proposed new framework either the GAC or a ministerial-level official from
the People's Republic of China would need to request that the Republic of China
be treated as a unitary state. (Need I even mention how unlikely that would be?)

This may not seem a satisfactory outcome, but I do think it's the most sensible
position for ICANN to take. We do not want to be in a position where we are
deciding whether Barcelona is a part of Spain or Catalonia, whether Scotland is
a part of the UK or an independent nation, whether Las Malvinas/Falkland Islands
are British or Argentine. I would feel more comfortable deferring to an external
body to make the determination as to what is or is not a State. I am not sure
which third party we should be turning to here, but I am certain that a
Californian non-profit shouldn't be involved in questions of national
sovereignty or self-determination.

On an unrelated note I was reading the ICANN EMEA newsletter a few moments ago
and saw we have a Vice President for the Middle East. Not sure how that works
given ICANN's current geographic regions framework recognises the existence of
just five regions...?

Thanks again, Ed and Stephanie, for your comments. If there is disagreement with
my views here - and indeed we would like to define what is or is not a state -
please do write back and we can discuss further.

Best wishes,

Ayden



On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 2:29 PM, Stephanie Perrin [log in to unmask] wrote:

Perhaps a note about how APEC deals with this might be helpful? Dangerous
turf....
cheers stephanie

On 2016-04-13 8:00, Edward Morris wrote:


Hi Ayden.

Thank you very much for your hard work on this.

Is there some place in the document we can either clarify, define, add to or
modify the word 'state'.?

Quick example: Taiwan is represented in the GAC. I and 22 countries of the
world, including Panama, for example, consider Taiwan to be a state. Yet, the
United Nations does not. If we create further regions based upon culture and
Asia is divided into multiple groups it is conceivable that Taiwan would
automatically be lumped i with Chins where the criteria used in assignment would
not normally generate that outcome. There are other examples of this, in the
Middle East being another.

Thanks for considering how and where this could fit ion to our comment.

Kind Regards,

Ed Mporris




From : "Ayden Férdeline" < [log in to unmask] >
Sent : Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:18 PM
To : [log in to unmask]
Subject : Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Working Group Report
- NCSG Response


Hello all,

Just a reminder that the deadline to submit our comments on the final report of
the Geographic Regions Review Working Group is fast approaching. If we agree to
submit something (and I will confess I am not too sure of process here - do we
want to submit something? Is this something best discussed on Thursday's open
policy call?) it would be helpful to have your feedback in by next Tuesday. This
is because the deadline for comments is 24 April.

I was reading the statement that was submitted by the Registries Stakeholder
Group yesterday. They began with an interesting remark which I would like to
quote in full - I don't think there is value in us echoing it, but it might be
something we'd like to note in our response to the Draft Framework of Principles
for Cross Community Working Groups, if we respond:

“The RySG notes that it has been nearly nine years since the concerns about the
definition and use of Geographic Regions were highlighted by the ccNSO in 2007
and almost three years since the WGGR produced its final report in June 2013.
The reason for these exceptionally long timelines is unclear but they might be
cause of concern for some RySG members.”

Just for ease of reference, here is a link to the statement I have drafted so
far which incorporates the inputs of around 20 NCSG members. I am not precious
about the words. If you would like to change something, please go ahead and
re-phrase it: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-c2vVT2DNO73l89wfZTvKtY70rmaid8g7XBO-Vto9SM/edit?usp=sharing

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best wishes,


Ayden Férdeline
Statement of Interest



On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 10:48 PM, Ayden Férdeline [log in to unmask] wrote:



Hi Glenn, and others,

Thanks for your comments. Regarding the Fellowship, as you know, ICANN takes a
rather economically deterministic view in assessing eligibility.. In order to be
eligible for a Fellowship, a candidate must be a citizen of a country classed by
the World Bank as a low, lower-middle, or upper-middle economy. I don't happen
to see anything wrong with means testing this programme. Nor do I see anything
wrong with deferring to a recognised third-party to make the call as to whether
someone can afford or not to participate (it's hardly within ICANN's remit to be
doing this). But still, the eligibility criteria is broken.

The biggest issue I see is this: just because a country is supposedly
high-income does not mean the Fellow comes from such a background. It does not
mean that a country invests in education, nor is looking to build the capacity
of its citizenry in Internet governance matters. I can only speak from personal
experience here — living in the UK, higher education is very much another
commodity to be exported, not something that the State sees a responsibility to
invest in. The other flaw is in the data set. We're relying on data
self-reported by States to the World Bank. Some countries do not report accurate
data and it is unclear what repercussions (if any) there are for doing so. The
figures that Argentina, for instance, reports are questionable in accuracy. This
is a country that goes to the trouble of rigging the Economist's Big Mac Index
(by imposing price controls on Big Macs); I would put forward that the figures
they are reporting to the World Bank are intended for domestic consumption and
not grounded in reality. The very real impact here, however, is that Argentines
are not eligible for ICANN Fellowships, because Argentina has self-reported
itself to the World Bank as a high-income economy.

My preference would be for the Fellowship programme to be extended to those of
all nationalities. Of course there should be some way to recognise and account
for privilege, but particularly for early career participants and those without
institutional backing, it doesn't matter which country you come from — funding
to participate in ICANN activities is going to be an issue.

To your other comments, Glenn, I am glad that Ed has taken ownership of this
matter and will seek a response from the relevant parties.

Best wishes,

Ayden



On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 6:39 PM, Glenn McKnight [log in to unmask] wrote:


We have been bringing up 'forever' the issue of First Nations from North America
and elsewhere which are denied access to the fellowship. Also the 15 islands
under NARALO for the South Pacific. These members are deemed part of the rich
west and not eligible. Meanwhile American Samoa or the Hopi Reservations make
less many of the countries ie. Barbados and others who are deemed worthy to be
fellows. I am speaking with Loris Taylor of Native Public Media and she is
working with the Tribal elders in the US to join GAC since US tribes which are
treaty countries are eligible. No one from ICANN has responded to them.

Glenn



Glenn McKnight
[log in to unmask]
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
..
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Kathy Kleiman < [log in to unmask] > wrote:


Hi Tracy, Ayden and All,
I came from the South School of Internet Governance last week (organized by Olga
Cavalli) and learned that a lot of time is being spent arguing about and within
regions. And there is much work and so many other issues to argue about!

To Ayden's questions below, which did not make it to me earlier, let me respond:
I think that it is people who should organize their regions within ICANN.
Israel, for example, might object to being in the Middle Eastern region; as
their citizens are so often denied entrance to conferences in nearby countries,
they normally go to Europe and other areas for their meetings. Why should their
young people have no chance at getting a NextGen scholarship if it is only
regional and they can't attend anything in their regions? That's just one
example.

The ones Tracy points to below is another example - and solution.

I dislike "recreating the wheel" and my guess is that others have solved this
issue many times and in many ways over the years. What has worked?
Ayden, as a traveler of the world, I certainly vote for you to help solve this
interesting problem!
Best,
Kathy



On 4/6/2016 2:56 PM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:



For these reasons and more, the GAC deliberately avoids recognition of "regions"
in the ICANN space.

In terms of the Americas - geography certainly does not rule even re: the RIRs
and the Caribbean is probably the best/worst example:

Consider this (via the NRO)

The ARIN Caribbean

US VIRGIN ISLANDS
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS
ANGUILLA
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
BAHAMAS
BARBADOS
BERMUDA
CAYMAN ISLANDS
DOMINICA
GRENADA
GUADELOUPE
JAMAICA
MARTINIQUE
PUERTO RICO
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS
SAINT LUCIA
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS

The LACNIC Caribbean

ARUBA
CUBA
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
FRENCH GUIANA
GUYANA
HAITI
NETHERLANDS ANTILLES
SURINAME
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

The RIPE NCC Caribbean

MONTSERRAT

SAINT MARTIN?

Unclear

Caribbean Netherlands - Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba - LACNIC ?

Curacao - LACNIC?

Sint Maarten - LACNIC?

Saint Martin - RIPE NCC?

Other idiosyncrasies (defying geography):

Malawi - ARIN
Antarctica - ARIN

(I could be missing one or two island territories/States)



Hi Kathy,

Thanks for your comments. I just wanted to pick up on something; you mentioned
that (similar, presumably) legal structures should be one of our guiding
instruments in the new geographic regions framework. What were you thinking of
here? That in the GAC, ICANN should be measuring how many members have common
and civil law along with, say, Sharia law provisions, in relation to the total
number of countries in the world with those legal systems? How valuable would
that be?

I am not a lawyer so my understanding of this topic is very limited: I thought
every country's legal system had its own identity - though some have been
inherited from or influenced by colonialism, or another factor - so I'm not
certain as to what we would be trying to achieve here. What type of diversity
would you like to see in terms of legal structures?

Many thanks,

Ayden



On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 4:07 PM, Kathy Kleiman [log in to unmask] wrote:

All, I am not sure that the technical regions need to be our guiding point here.
As Wolfgang points out, the technical regions are a little skewed. I would like
language, culture, legal structure, civil society structures, and business
structures should be our guide here. Quick note that Mexico was “deemed” part of
the Latin American region at the founding of ICANN for these reasons. Tx for the
work and discussion! Best, Kathy On 3/31/2016 7:25 AM, “Kleinwächter, Wolfgang”
wrote: > All this can be understood only in the historical context: Look at the
service region for today´s RIPE NCC( https://www.ripe. .net/participate/member-support/info/list-of-members/europe ) which - as the
“European” RIR - inlcudes Middle East and Central Asien countries. When AFRINIC
was formed in the early 2000s they took mainly sub-saharian countries which were
served previously by ARIN and RIPE and left some middle east countries with
RIPE. Difficult to explain . But the good news is: It works.... > > wolfgang > >
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Shane Kerr
> Gesendet: Do 31.03.2016 13:06 > An: [log in to unmask] > Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Working Group Report -
NCSG Response > > Seun, > > While ARIN predates ICANN, when ICANN was formed
ARIN was still the RIR > for North America, South America, and sub-Saharan
Africa. Certainly in > the case of Jamaica, since the official language is
English it made a > certain amount of sense for them to have stayed with ARIN as
an RIR. > > The Caribbean islands all have unique backgrounds, and I suspect
trying > to group them to get any kind of regional consensus is always going to
> be problematic. :) > > Cheers, > > -- > Shane > > At 2016-03-29 21:55:41 +0100
> Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> That particularly amazed me Tracy. There is an ARIN
meeting that will be >> holding in Jamaica sometime in April. It was quite
interesting for me to >> learn that based on ICANN categorisation, .jm fall
under the LAC zone even >> though it's within the ARIN region (RIR wise). Don't
know how much this >> impacts on the work of the NCSG but I believe it does for
the At-Large >> community. >> >> Considering that ARIN predates ICANN, one would
expect there is already >> existing data set to work with. Nevertheless, I guess
there may have been >> some other reason that informed their decision which
ofcourse is currently >> be out of my reach/grasps >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from
my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> On 29 Mar 2016 9:08 p.m., “Tracy
F. Hackshaw” >> wrote: >> >>> See ARIN - LACNIC split in the Caribbean region.
>>> >>> Sent from my Fire >>> >>> >>> On March 29, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Ayden
Férdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Karel, >>> >>> While that concern was
raised, my understanding is that it was not carried >>> forward into the
recommendations. The Working Group did not recommend >>> moving most of the
Caribbean region from the ICANN silo of Latin America to >>> North America
because it feared the two regions would be split on >>> geographical and
linguistic lines (I would suggest they already are.), >>> among other reasons of
“practicality”. It does, however, have provisions in >>> place to allow a
country's government to voluntarily request to move to >>> another region. The
procedures around how this would happen have not yet >>> been developed by
Staff. >>> >>> I welcome any comments or suggestions you might have for our
statement, >>> and I look forward to reading your additions. >>> >>> Best
wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Karel Douglas
>>> wrote: >>> >>>> Good work - I read the NCUC report which caused me to
immediately >>>> read the final report of the WG. >>>> >>>> I'm glad that the
issue of the Caribbean region was discussed as it is a >>>> very topical issue.
>>>> >>>> Carlton Samuels was on the WG and would have highlighted the concerns
>>>> that we have. >>>> >>>> I will certainly try to add a few comments on your
document. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> >>>> Karel >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at
1:26 PM, Ayden Férdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, team- >>>>> >>>>> I have
drafted a response to the final report of the Geographic Regions >>>>> Review
Working Group. Comments are due in about 25 days time but if we do >>>>> decide
to reply, I hope we can submit something in advance of that >>>>> deadline. I've
shared my first draft on Google Docs here >>>>> >>>>> and have also attached it
to this email for those without access to that >>>>> website. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-c2vVT2DNO73l89wfZTvKtY70rmaid8g7XBO-Vto9SM/edit >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You can read the Working Group's final report here: >>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en >>>>> >>>>> I suspect that we will have a wide birth of opinions on this topic,
so >>>>> please know that I'm very much open to reviewing or rethinking anything
>>>>> that appears in this early draft. I am also new to writing public comments
>>>>> like this one so welcome any feedback you would be kind enough to share. I
>>>>> look forward to hearing your thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>
>>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>> >>>>> [image: File] >>>>> >>>>> Ayden Ferdeline -
Response - WGGR Report.pdf 36KB >>>>> Download >>>>> >>>>> [image: >>>>> Logo]
>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> Statement of Interest >>> >>> >>> >>>
Ayden Férdeline >>> Statement of Interest >>> >>>



Ayden Férdeline
Statement of Interest
Ayden Férdeline
Statement of Interest
Ayden Férdeline
Statement of Interest
Ayden Férdeline
Statement of Interest

Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest


--
Marília Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/




Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest