Thank you everyone for your efforts and congratulations Ayden, you are an
example for all of us.
Regards.
Le dimanche 24 avril 2016, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]> a
écrit :
> Thank you Marilia for the prompt action on this.
>
> Thank you Ayden for starting and most important of all finishing it. I
> think we can look at this as an example of how members can get engaged more
> effectively with policymaking at NCUC/NCSG.
>
>
>
> On 24 April 2016 at 21:05, Marilia Maciel <[log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> It is my pleasure to let you know that the NCSG policy committee has
>> endorsed this comments, with just some minor adjustments. The comments have
>> been submitted today on behalf of the NCSG. Please see the final version
>> attached. When uploaded, the document will be available here:
>> https://forum.icann.org/lists/geo-regions-23dec15/
>>
>> I would like to thank everyone that shared their thoughts and made it a
>> good and constructive contribution. More especially, I would like to
>> vividly thank Ayden for his leadership on this process. Congratulations
>> Ayden, you were amazing. I am sure the our group appreciates and admires
>> your efforts as much as I do. Looking forward to working with you again.
>>
>> Thanks and best wishes,
>> Marília
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for sharing your inputs into this document over the past three
>>> weeks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Per the timeline agreed with the NCSG Policy Committee, I have now
>>> closed the Google document for edits. However, you may still follow
>>> this link to read the draft statement
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-c2vVT2DNO73l89wfZTvKtY70rmaid8g7XBO-Vto9SM/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>> and I have attached a PDF export to this email for archive purposes.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Policy Committee co-chairs will now review the document, make final
>>> edits, and potentially introduce it to the wider PC for further
>>> deliberation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you again,
>>>
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> P.S. Thank you for your kind words, Ed, and for your invaluable
>>> comments. I have accepted all of your proposed changes. In particular, I
>>> consider Recommendation K to be significantly stronger now that it
>>> incorporates your suggestions.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>
>>>> As I believe this is the first time that you've held the pen on a
>>>> public comment I would like to extend my compliments to you on a job well
>>>> done. From the initial draft to your consultation exercises everything
>>>> you've done here has been both appropriate and in full keeping with the
>>>> bottom up participatory model of governance we try to practice here in the
>>>> NCSG. Thank you so much for your efforts and congratulations!
>>>>
>>>> I certainly can support this statement as it is currently written. I do
>>>> have one editorial suggestion:
>>>>
>>>> On paragraph 15 I would suggest deleting the last line. Given
>>>> geopolitical complexities I would propose that the term "states and other
>>>> collective entities" is sufficient without need of further definition.
>>>> Narrowing the definition would have a tendency to perhaps exclude groups we
>>>> simply haven't thought of that we would want included. There are procedures
>>>> within the "new" ICANN to for parties who wish to further define these
>>>> terms on a case by case basis to be able do so through our new effective
>>>> appellate mechanisms..
>>>>
>>>> A big shout out to Jean-Jaques and the Norbert for their contributions
>>>> in helping refine the terminology here. Very helpful.
>>>>
>>>> In response to your questions:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *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.”*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm fine with supporting it provided the per capita provision you have
>>>> wisely included in our response remains.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *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.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would consider abstaining on F with a request that more community
>>>> input be solicited and received before proceeding. Claims are made about a
>>>> strong community preference yet this is not evident in the data presented.
>>>> There are many combinations and subtitles that should be presented to the
>>>> community for response.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I recognise we may be too late for that and defer to your
>>>> judgement, Ayden, and that of others on this matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *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.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am perfectly happy with paragraph 5 as written but am certainly open
>>>> to considering any changes that may be proposed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *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?*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do not agree with unilateral Board oversight. We may want to include
>>>> something like:
>>>>
>>>> As these matters are integral to the functioning of the ICANN community
>>>> we believe that oversight should be a joint community and Board
>>>> responsibility. While supporting the recommendation to change the Bylaws to
>>>> provide for a review of these structures every five years we also suggest
>>>> that the Empowered Community be given the right to reject these changes by
>>>> a simple majority vote of the Decisional Participants.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously this WG made it's report before we knew there was to be a
>>>> transition. Certain adaptations should be expected.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, again, Ayden for a wonderful job. I hope these comments are
>>>> helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ed Morrid
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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]
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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
>>>>> <https://links3.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/cxl354QsRIVszY3P6?rn=ic0UD5kI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0czV3YzlGZtc2cj5mI> 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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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 <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] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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 ?? or quyu ??), no one could stop a state
>>>>> from translating that into "guojia ??", 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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>>
>>>>> À: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>>
>>>>> Sent : Wednesday, April 13, 2016 6:31 PM
>>>>> To : [log in to unmask]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>>
>>>>> Sent : Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:18 PM
>>>>> To : [log in to unmask]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>
>>>>> skype gmcknight
>>>>> twitter gmcknight
>>>>>
>>>>> ..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Kathy Kleiman < [log in to unmask]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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]
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[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
>>>>> <https://links6.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/Iwqn9ITUsdSojfO7s?rn=ic0UD5kI&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0czV3YzlGZtc2cj5mI>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *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
>>>> <https://links10.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/4c2rubGqrRMkRd5WW?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *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/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
|
