We should be very careful when an international body such as ICANN appears
to *"descend into the arena".*

I agree with Niels sentiments on the matter and I thoroughly sympathise
with these persons but Tapani's words *"good intentions do not guarantee
good results"*  are very correct.

regards

Karel DOUGLAS

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Brett,
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with you.
>
> What I do believe is we need to have a clearly defined policy in place to
> deal with situations like this. Why does Taiwan have a ccTLD and not the
> SADR? That said, the current policy IS taking a position, that of Morocco.
> Non delegation is as much of a provocative action as is delegation.
>
> If the policy is ICANN delegates to every country with an ISO designation
> then some body, likely the SADR,  should be delegated EH. If that is not
> the policy, and it is obviously not in fact, then what is the policy? I'm
> wary of ad hoc solutions to this type of problem. What if China were to
> decide that .TW should be deleted from the root zone registry, a la .YU? Do
> we have a clear, transparent policy in place to deal with these types of
> situations, both delegation and deletion?
>
> This obviously is a matter for the ccNSO but as it does bear upon
> sovereignty and self determination and is within the scope of ICANN I
> thought, and still do, think it's a topic ripe for exploration for a group
> that charges itself with being the "home" of human rights at ICANN.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Schaefer, Brett" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent*: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:52 PM
>
> *To*: [log in to unmask]
> *Subject*: Re: Marrakesh & 7 human rights defenders
>
>
>
>
> 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]>
> *Sent*: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:04 PM
> *To*: [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]) 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]
> >:
> >
> > > 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]) wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA256
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > - --
> > > > Niels ten Oever
> > > > Head of Digital
> > > >
> > > > Article 19
> > > > www.article19.org
> > > >
> > > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> > > > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > Version: GnuPG v2
> > > >
> > > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWZ/q7AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpnFkH/0qEuk++pW431ne0wYk6us+E
> > > > xLj4+eFfj2SZlOM9D3Pat4/+qvgrGCHZLWJXAg7pqS0TRNslDQtp1iY/8xb9Xxz/
> > > > EBQsu1IQ63pY2mIVwixiBnzMhVso857qf2uAv84j7n/zoQ6MhnkQCdsWWcZvdj+u
> > > > GakvydpqV3sQio5gRo0ijLCKGzvtSIoHW+99bmmDmSMifadf6vfRK2W0a2E+auIN
> > > > bn8QJQfW/5GRn62fmlCJC2JeYi80b+TBozV6GbvaGSQvgwZ886lX51DXXqI6oyNL
> > > > Us8F0VzI9mcQ+tT/P22BbGP8J7RJsQr1sNjgVnnwRQqGkFIbdVfjzbmE+vyPotY=
> > > > =fVDL
> > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Brett Schaefer
> 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
>
>
>
>
>