[PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions - 22/03

[Edward Morris]

Although I would prefer to leave the explanatory words "in order to take into consideration disputed territories" out of our reply all together, if they are to be included I strongly support Ayden's suggested alteration.
  
 Currently Hong King, for example, has GAC representation yet it is not "disputed territory". I'm not sure the Peoples Republic of China or the Republic of China officially consider their territory to be disputed: the official "One China" policy does not lend itself to that terminology.  Indigenous groups, currently considering a way into the ICANN world, would likely take umbrage at that term of well.
  
 Ed 
  
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 2:57 PM
To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] PC deliberation: NCSG statement on Geographic Regions - 22/03   
  Hello everyone, 
  
Just to let you know, I ran the text through Ayden, who did an outstanding work in proposing the initial draft, running consultations with the NCSG members and consolidating the text that came before the PC. He also agrees with the changes and thanks the PC for the great suggestions. The only remark he made was on para 15, on the expression we added at the end:    
 The text initially read: 
 However, we wish to promote usage of the term "states and other collective entities" in place of "states". 
  
 We suggested: 
 However, we wish to promote usage of the term "states and other collective entities" in place of "states", in order to take into consideration disputed territories.  
 
 In order to remain faithful to discussions among NCSG members, who imagined several possible situations, Ayden suggested: 
 However, we wish to promote usage of the term "states and other collective entities" in place of "states", in order to take into consideration situations such as disputed territories.  
  
 I believe it is a minor adjustment and I think we are in the position to accept this modification. 
  
 Thanks 
 Mar?lia 
 

   On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:   Thanks, Sam. Much appreciated.  
 I agree with the importance of your questions. It seems to me that the goal of the group that produced the report was rather utilitarian. They did not mean to go beyond the definition of general frameworks, while your questions are much more teleological. I think that, given the limitations on the scope of the report, our statement tried to introduce some concerns with regards to the goals and purpose of having geographic regions and called for more discussion on that.
  
 Thanks for your support. 
 Mar?lia

     On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:   Marilia and colleagues,

In my individual capacity I am in support of the NCSG statement on Modifications to ICANN's Geographic Regions Framework. I of course strongly support the calls for more inclusiveness both in terms of representation and in the processes use within ICANN for arriving at representation. I however still have a concern which I stated at the start of the NSCG review of the geographic regions document.

While regional representation should respect the broad principles of diversity and inclusiveness, it should also reflect the purposes of representation within ICANN. Representation should reflect a "form follows function" approach to the designation of regions. What appears to remain unclear is what are the rights and obligations of regional membership, both on the part of the regional member and on the part of ICANN? Is simply saying "the right to participate in multistakeholder Internet governance within ICANN's remit" enough here? When a regional entity confronts making a choice among regions, what should they be considering in terms of their future relationship with ICANN and with their regional colleagues? What should ICANN expect in terms of its obligations and and the participation of the regional entity?  Am I wrong in thinking that something has been left under defined here?

Sam L (NPOC) 

    

    

--         Mar?lia 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/ 
  
   

    
--        Mar?lia 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/ 
  
   


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160424/d80a1ad7/attachment.html>