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 > > > > >