Dear Paul
Yes that might be the most logical solution but as always you can not
get it ever 100% right. What about different religious, economical,
ethnic groups in a state/distinct economy that feel connected to
different other state/distinct economy. In some cases they might even be
members of a obsessed majority, so votes don't help.
Looks like we have to look for the best possible and not the ultimate
solution.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Klaus
On 4/14/2016 3:12 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Excellent idea! Why not float it in our comments?
>
> --MM
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *Paul Rosenzweig
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:23 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Working
> Group Report - NCSG Response
>
> I have no real knowledge of this issue at all, but perhaps someone can
> tell me – why shouldn’t the state/distinct economy be able to choose
> which region it wants to be in? Obviously, it would have to live with
> that choice – it can’t shuffle around every 6 months – but as an
> initial matter, is there some reason that self-sorting is not an option?
>
> Just curious
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *Kathy Kleiman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 13, 2016 5:24 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Working
> Group Report - NCSG Response
>
> Ed,
> Perhaps you can help Ayden with the answer you would like to see. In
> some ways, Taiwan is an outlier problem. I was one of the commenters
> who encouraged Ayden to write about allowing more flexibility around
> cultural, economic, linguistic and ideological lines. It is because we
> know that the current lines are making things very difficult in some
> regions and bind countries without similarities together in ways that
> are causing certain existing regions inordinate amounts of effort and
> time in their divisions - and loss of time on their policy work.
>
> So I encouraged more flexibility and exceptions -- of the sort that
> put Mexico with the ICANN Latin American region years ago although it
> is clearly a country in North America.
>
> Re: Taiwan, clearly you are an expert, Ed. How can we give other
> countries flexibility to more easily self-organize where it makes
> sense, but not allow the prejudice you are pointing out that may come
> to Taiwan?
> Tx,
> Kathy
>
> On 4/13/2016 2:46 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> 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]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 6:31 PM
> *To*: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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
>
> Image removed by sender.
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 2:29 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent*: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:18 PM
> *To*: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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
> <https://links7.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/HNd3LAYRAqsA2njoA?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI>
> 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
> <https://links2.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/lqkayIE4XigvCIbYy?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI>
>
> Image removed by sender.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 10:48 PM, Ayden Férdeline
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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
> <https://links2.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/R7HrwMGbPdKsgJC5z?rn=iUmbpxWZkJXqDbEIuVGZ5FkI&re=i02bj5SZulGblRmclZGQu5WYjlmI>
> (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>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
> <https://links6.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/NFYlE7DXtQCyuTshl?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> Statement of Interest
> <https://links10.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/RTRLQY6cekZHrPc4d?rn=iUmbpxWZkJXqDbEIuVGZ5FkI&re=i02bj5SZulGblRmclZGQu5WYjlmI>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> Statement of Interest
> <https://links7.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/iCqYkhyENkmiusddu?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> Statement of Interest
> <https://links5.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/RraXGPa6CF7rQlOtv?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI>
>
|
