Dear Paul Yes that might be the most logical solution but as always you can not get it ever 100% right. What about different religious, economical, ethnic groups in a state/distinct economy that feel connected to different other state/distinct economy. In some cases they might even be members of a obsessed majority, so votes don't help. Looks like we have to look for the best possible and not the ultimate solution. Just my 2 cents worth. Klaus On 4/14/2016 3:12 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Excellent idea! Why not float it in our comments? > > --MM > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf > Of *Paul Rosenzweig > *Sent:* Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:23 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Working > Group Report - NCSG Response > > I have no real knowledge of this issue at all, but perhaps someone can > tell me – why shouldn’t the state/distinct economy be able to choose > which region it wants to be in? Obviously, it would have to live with > that choice – it can’t shuffle around every 6 months – but as an > initial matter, is there some reason that self-sorting is not an option? > > Just curious > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig > > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] > > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf > Of *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 13, 2016 5:24 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Geographic Regions Review Working > Group Report - NCSG Response > > Ed, > Perhaps you can help Ayden with the answer you would like to see. In > some ways, Taiwan is an outlier problem. I was one of the commenters > who encouraged Ayden to write about allowing more flexibility around > cultural, economic, linguistic and ideological lines. It is because we > know that the current lines are making things very difficult in some > regions and bind countries without similarities together in ways that > are causing certain existing regions inordinate amounts of effort and > time in their divisions - and loss of time on their policy work. > > So I encouraged more flexibility and exceptions -- of the sort that > put Mexico with the ICANN Latin American region years ago although it > is clearly a country in North America. > > Re: Taiwan, clearly you are an expert, Ed. How can we give other > countries flexibility to more easily self-organize where it makes > sense, but not allow the prejudice you are pointing out that may come > to Taiwan? > Tx, > Kathy > > On 4/13/2016 2:46 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > 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]> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Sent*: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 6:31 PM > *To*: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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 > > Image removed by sender. > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 2:29 PM, Stephanie Perrin > [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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]> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Sent*: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:18 PM > *To*: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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 > <https://links7.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/HNd3LAYRAqsA2njoA?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI> > 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 > <https://links2.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/lqkayIE4XigvCIbYy?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI> > > Image removed by sender. > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 10:48 PM, Ayden Férdeline > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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 > <https://links2.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/R7HrwMGbPdKsgJC5z?rn=iUmbpxWZkJXqDbEIuVGZ5FkI&re=i02bj5SZulGblRmclZGQu5WYjlmI> > (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>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 > <https://links6.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/NFYlE7DXtQCyuTshl?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI> > > Ayden Férdeline > > Statement of Interest > <https://links10.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/RTRLQY6cekZHrPc4d?rn=iUmbpxWZkJXqDbEIuVGZ5FkI&re=i02bj5SZulGblRmclZGQu5WYjlmI> > > Ayden Férdeline > > Statement of Interest > <https://links7.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/iCqYkhyENkmiusddu?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI> > > Ayden Férdeline > > Statement of Interest > <https://links5.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/RraXGPa6CF7rQlOtv?rn=&re=gI1RWZuIXez5idyV2c0NXasB0UTV1QTlERtc0UD5kI> >