Thanks, Jean-Jacques.


Norbert Klein
in Cambodia

On 04/14/2016 01:48 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> 
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.
(My emphasis added. Norbert)

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.