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 <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

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
>