Hi,
I believe that the operate according RFC1951, where all the parties,
state, user community and operator need to arrive at a agreement on what
to do. As of Oct 14 they added the Framework of Interpretation to
further specify the process.
Anything where there isn't an established recognized state, or perhaps
superstate like the EU, can be difficult. Also notice that the state
that calls itself Republic of China got TW and not CN.
But in any case it really does not seem to be an ICANN issue so much as
an external political issue. And certainly not a GNSO issue.
For a few years there was pressure by groups for .eh, with lots of
appropriate swag. Eventually faded away. Does NCSG need to dive into
this quagmire? In any case it really is more of a ccNSO issue rather
than a GNSO issue and perhaps would be mission creep for the GNSO and
its constituent parts. If we want to limit ICANN's so-called mission
creep, we ought to also be careful about ours.
Note: I am not as concerned about mission creep personally as many here
are, but as a SG and as an SO we have made quite a stand on that issue.
avri
On 10-Dec-15 08:50, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
> > Hey Ed, > > > > Without taking one side or the other, this seems to
me to be precisely the type of inter-governmental dispute that ICANN
should shy away from until governments can arrive at a consensus
position. No matter what position the organization takes, it will be
seen as siding with one government faction or another. > > > >
Moreover, it will set a precedent for future such situations. Do we
really want ICANN to be making ccTLD decisions in situations of disputed
sovereignty? How about Eastern Ukraine or Crimea? What about Biafra or
Somaliland if stability in Nigeria or Somalia deteriorate further? What
about the Islamic State if it comes to ICANN? > > > > If ICANN goes
down this road, I think it would create more incentives for governments
to stick their noses in ICANN or, heaven forbid, take it to the ITU. >
> > > Best, > > > > Brett > > > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Edward Morris >
*Sent:* Thursday, December 10, 2015 8:27 AM > *To:*
[log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Marrakesh & 7 human
rights defenders > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Without taking a
position on Niels proposal, there is an ongoing issue directly within
ICANN's scope related to human rights that I hope we might be able to
explore within one of our meetings in Morocco. This concerns delegation
of EH. > > > > EH is the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 code for Western Sahara. I
should emphasise it is a code under ISO 3166-1, generally national
designations, and not 3166-2, which designates subregions. Western
Sahara is a territory that is disputed between Morocco and the Sahrawi
Arab Democratic Republic. Although not a UN member, the SADR inc
recognised by 80 plus countries, with 40 plus states currently
maintaining diplomatic relations with the group. > > > > Delegation of
the EH ccTLD has been frozen pending negotiations that have been ongoing
for decades. There is a territory controlled under various agreements by
the SADR, an internationally recognised government, yet they are
currently forced to use the Moroccan ccTLD. > > > > I'd like to learn
more about how ICANN deals with situations like these, generally, and
the Western Sahara in particular. Is ICANN's policy dictated by the
United Stares government? Might / should this change post transition?
The CCWG in work stream 2 is going to have a subgroup on jurisdiction,
namely that applicable to ICANN. Should we add this topic to it's remit?
> > > > As we discuss human rights and ICANN in the context of the
Morocco meeting I wanted to bring this up. It certainly is within
ICANN's scope and mission, involves recognition by ICANN of the
sovereignty of the clearly defined internationally recognised
group...might be an interesting issue to explore. > > > > Thanks for
considering, > > > > Ed Morris > > > > > > > > > > > >
------------------------- > > *From*: "Tapani Tarvainen"
<[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >
*Sent*: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:04 PM > *To*:
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >
*Subject*: Re: Marrakesh & 7 human rights defenders > > > > Thank you
Rafik. > > We do indeed need to be careful here, good intentions do not
guarantee > good results. Hasty action could easily do more harm than
good to both > the people in question as well as our future ability to
influence > ICANN's human rights and other policies. > > But as I
expected, you are clearly aware of all this and well able to > evaluate
various alternatives and their possible repercussions, so > I'm happy
you're willing to take the lead on this. > > Best, > > Tapani > > On Dec
10 11:39, Rafik Dammak ([log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) wrote: > > > Hi Tapani, > > > > happy
to do that, I will first investigate what are the options and what > >
can be done, discussing with the moroccan friends and locals. I am aware
> > about the political context and sensitivity in the country, and will
get > > more info and feedback anyway. > > > > I saw the latest
responses and I think they jumped too quickly to some > > conclusion. I
didn't see any proposal for protest or something similar such > >
occupying the space. I don't think those activists would ask for any
bold > > action or ICANN as organization to take position in the matter.
they are > > cautious and pragmatic, aware of the limits. we will
discuss with them > > anyway about the best options, having their safety
in mind. > > > > btw regarding a parallel event, I may respond to that
quickly. ADN, the > > association, was prevented several times from
having public meetings so I > > would assume that option doesn't sound
realistic. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2015-12-09 23:11
GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: > > > > > Hi Niels, > > > > > > I
think this is an excellent idea. > > > > > > But exactly what and how,
that is a difficult question. > > > > > > Fortunately we have people
with local knowledge who can > > > help us plan this in more detail. I
should think Rafik > > > would be in an ideal position to coordinate
this effort, > > > if his undoubtedly busy schedule allows. > > > > > >
Rafik, what do you think? > > > > > > Tapani > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 09,
2015 at 10:56:11AM +0100, Niels ten Oever ( > > >
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>) wrote:
> > >
> Dear all,
>
> I hope this email finds you well. As you all know, the next ICANN
> meeting will be in Marrakesh. Morrocco hasn't got a great track record
> when it comes to human rights, and right now, seven human rights
> defenders are on trial.
>
> I think it would be good if we the NCSG we could give proper attention
> to this case and invite the human rights defenders to our session(s)
> so give them support, shed light on their case and call for the
> protection of freedom of expression in Morrocco.
>
> More information on the seven can be found here:
> https://www.freepressunlimited.org/en/news/these-seven-moroccan-human-ri
> ghts-defenders-are-on-trial
>
> and here:
>
> https://www.freepressunlimited.org/en/news/international-appeal-to-the-m
> oroccan-authorities-to-drop-charges-against-human-rights-defenders
>
> Am eager to hear from you how you think we could support these
> colleagues in distress, how we could visibility for their cases and
> how we could integrate these discussions in our work at ICANN.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> > > > > > ------------------------- > BrettSchaefer > Jay Kingham Senior
Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher
Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign
Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >
Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
