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