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.