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 地区 or quyu 区域), no one could stop a state > from translating that into "guojia 国家", 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 >