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
|
