Thanks Marilia, and great job Ayden! 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 Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I just want to echo Marilia's comments and thank Ayden for his fine work > on this public comment. > > It's never easy doing something for the first time and Ayden did a > remarkable job with the initial analysis and draft, accepting input, > rewriting the draft to accept the input and preparing it for consideration > by the Policy Committee. Thank you Ayden! Job well done. > > I hope this might serve as an inspiration for some of you who want to get > further involved but aren't sure how. This month's policy committee meeting > was a bit depressing because there were a number of comments for which we > had no volunteers stepping up to lead. We really could use you! > > A list of open public comments may be found here: > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments > > I recognise that some of these comment opportunities might not immediately > be of broad interest. For example, the Proposal for Khmer Script Root Zone > Label Generation Rules might not immediately be of interest. Yet, I'm quite > sure somewhere in that comment opportunity are issues we as a community > care about. For example, the aforementioned comment opportunity is part of > a series developing label generation rules (LGR). There are many speech > issues involved in the development of LGR's. When you do not permit a label > you are restricting speech on the domain line. One LGR many are familiar > with are the restrictions on the use of ASC11 labels. Are these > prohibitions reasonable? Are interest groups sneaking in restrictions that > are not justifiable? Unless we have someone from our perspective looking at > these reports and creating comments we'll never know how we can improve > them and we'll have no input into the process. Some of these narrower > public comment opportunities are a great chance for those interested to > further their involvement in the NCSG. Please consider. > > If any of the available comments are of interest, or you are willing to > develop an expertise in the topics, please let our Policy Committee Chair > Marilia or Vice Chairs Matt or David know. Alternatively, reach out to me > or anyone else on the P.C. We can really use your help and we'll give you > every bit of support we can. > > Thanks, again, Ayden for such a terrific job! > > Best, > > Ed Morris > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Marilia Maciel" <[log in to unmask]> > *Sent*: Sunday, April 24, 2016 8:07 PM > > *To*: [log in to unmask] > *Subject*: Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Working Group > Report - NCSG Response > > 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/ > > >