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]> 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]>
> 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]>
>> 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]
>>> 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]> 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]
>>>>
>>>> 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]>
>>>> 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] 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]
>>>> > 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]>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
|
