NCSG Colleagues,

I would like to caution a rush to decision here. But first I want to put 
my credentials on the table so there is no questioning of motives.  I 
have been engaged in civil rights struggles since the 1950's and 1960's 
where (in Berkeley) I, and my car, were shot at (tear gas grenades). For 
the past quarter century I have worked with the Ambedkar Centre for 
Justice and Peace in Mumbai (ACJP is a human rights, atrocity prevention 
and amelioration ngo dealing with Dalit/untouchable human rights and abuse).

Niels has put a proposal on the table and one cannot but agree with the 
concerns around human rights and freedom of expression, while at the 
same time having major reservations about the proposed activities. I 
will state my personal objections here, and suggest an alternative.

Since there is time between now and Marrakesh, after consultation, I 
will come back later with a position based on what the NPOC membership 
has to say about the proposed activities.

First, it is important to remember that there is a vast difference 
between asking ICANN to be introspective, accountable and transparent 
about the relationship between activities within its remit and human 
rights. That has been the central focus of human rights discussions 
within ICANN up to now. The proposal to address Moroccan human rights 
issues within ICANN sessions is a quite different activity and 
essentially proposes that elements of the ICANN constituencies engage in 
broad human rights advocacy within ICANN. Also, look at the Human Rights 
Watch reports on ICANN's African GAC members. One could ask, why stop at 
Morocco? Africa produces an almost endless list of human rights abuses, 
mainly based on curbing freedom of expression. There is a better way.

It would make more sense for individuals within ICANN constituencies, 
Niels' Article Nineteen, and local Moroccan human rights advocates to 
arrange concurrent events outside ICANN, using the opportunity of people 
attending ICANN in Marrakesh to engage in those events. This is superior 
to pressing for events within ICANN for two key reasons.

The first is that engaging within the ICANN program in national human 
rights issues outside ICANN's remit is dangerous scope creep for ICANN. 
ICANN can advocate for the stability and security of the DNS, and it can 
be concerned about the relationship between the stability and security 
of the DNS as that relates to human rights, but it should stop there, at 
the border of its remit. Engaging in advocacy within ICANN would of 
course anger Morocco, and such anger and concern would go viral across 
GAC members and drive an even bigger (toxic) wedge between GAC and the 
NCSG constituencies, both within ICANN and at home.

The second reason is that trying to fit Moroccan human rights issues 
into the already overly tight and compressed ICANN meeting agenda would 
be a disservice to Moroccans engaged in human rights advocacy. There is 
a real risk that Moroccan colleagues would expect more than could be 
delivered within ICANN meeting constraints. Even follow up press 
coverage would be highly constrained and risk coloring ICANN with an 
advocacy ting that would serve nobody.

On the other hand, a concurrent event, organized in cooperation with but 
mainly by Moroccans and with extensive participation by those attending 
the ICANN meetings, would have more substance and more scope for follow 
up press coverage. ICANN people could attend the Moroccan event as 
individuals, or with the formal blessing of their own constituency 
organizations, outside of ICANN.

Let us try to do this one right. A good idea badly executed is a 
lose-lose for all.

Sam L.