Hi Kathy, Thanks for your comments and providing the example of Israel. The good news here is that the proposed new geographic regions framework allows for State self-determination. If Israel would like to be categorised as a part of Europe, it can request to be a part of that region for the purposes of ICANN activities. This would mean that Israeli students would be able to participate in the NextGen programme. You raise a good question about what best practices have been adopted by other organisations. I will do some desk research over the next few days to see what alternative models I am able to identify. In the Working Group's final report, it says that Staff were unable to find an alternative classification mechanism that would be appropriate for ICANN's purposes. I haven't been able to find a list of what alternative models they considered but I'll email the report author and seek clarification. Best wishes, Ayden On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 6:06 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