Congrats Ayden ! keep up the great work :) 2016-04-24 21:40 GMT+01:00 Arsène Tungali <[log in to unmask]>: > I second your comments and appreciation for a job well done by the group. > And congratulations are in order for Ayden for his leadership on this! > > ----------------- > Arsène Tungali, > Executive Director, Rudi International > www.rudiinternational.org > > Founder & Director, Mabingwa Forum > www.mabingwa-forum.com > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > Phone: +243993810967 > > 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow | ICANN Fellow | ISOC IGF Ambassador | > Activist & Youth Leader > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > On Apr 24, 2016, at 9:55 PM, Michael Oghia <[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > 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/ >> >> >> > >