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 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
>>>
>>>
>> 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/