[Ncsg-discuss] Draft Statement posici=?utf-8?Q?=C3=B3n_?=NCSG HR and the Rules Of law

Thu Sep 10 18:53:28 EEST 2026

Hey Niels:

This is an awesome statement (no worries about any “rust”!). Thanks for doing it. I’ve had a look and made a few suggestions and comments. It certainly sets the right tone with a focus on the steps that happened within the icann ecosystem.

A question for the larger community about what this actually is. It kind of looks like a public statement, but also an open letter to the institutions involved. Is it “open”? or is it intended to be a letter from the leadership of NCSG t the leadership of ISOC? And is it copied to the other entities? These details can matter.

Looking ahead, whatever their reply and explanation, there are next steps that are much broader within the ICANN universe. So maybe we can begin this discussion, such as:

*	What guidance can NCSG provide to civil society to become more resilient. Much of that may be (or even likely) out of the NCSG mandate, but pointers to other organizations might help. How the resilience I manifested I don’t have any idea ATM, but maybe worth thinking aout.
*	Within the NCSG mandate, there certainly is policy suggestions for how the various contracted bodies handle serverhold.
*	NCSG can see how it can utilize the human rights mandate within icann’s bylaws to pressure registries to (or require them) to exhaust every legal avenue before applying a serverhold.
*	I believe there are common issues in this for the CSG and maybe opportunities to multiply the message. After all, the risk is not only for civil society if any institution can lose its presence through a unilateral action. I would be surprised if others beyond the civil society community weren’t watching this closely.

Anyway, just some random thoughts. I look forward to what members have to say.

And again, thanks to Niels for creating the draft.

Ken

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Christabel Mebaghandu
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2026 9:28 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Draft Statement posición NCSG HR and the Rules Of law

We resolved during the Policy Call that Niels would be the penholder for the draft statement. I'm reposting the document for everyone's convenience below:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZdeCneOyDTnwLEebU1wVhkBqSBz37REBFeh6FAEOVTI/edit?usp=sharing

---

Christabel

  _____  

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> > on behalf of Pedro de Perdigão Lana <00001ebb4caf3a2f-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:00001ebb4caf3a2f-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> >
Sent: 10 September 2026 12:15
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>  <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> >
Subject: Re: Draft Statement posición NCSG HR and the Rules Of law 

Hi all,

I was following this discussion and the meeting but got a bit confused with this last exchange - the idea of this last message was to propose an alternative statement, Carlos?

Cordially,

Em qua., 9 de set. de 2026, 19:41, Carlos Vera <000022318a8e4197-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu <mailto:000022318a8e4197-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> > escreveu:

Please see this draft statement

Carlos Vera

  <https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=e710dcdb9b&attid=0.1&th=1a08b04f06364abf&view=fimg&fur=ip&rm=1a08b04f06364abf&sz=w1600-h1000&attbid=ANGjdJ9b_kPPvscHYnLtTSRHRo8_sD0pwZPgtQEgYiOF7iGoklsAuo7_2Zzxv4pNHNz5dclPjgEa-H4bwyvQxAMFgU0BQ9AqbfBFpOK1151DnqcDbbfMJije50hfJxY&disp=emb&realattid&zw> 

 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BeDZCjzm9rRixp0hERisjOOuWlGUwxdZS7gQ8RBTADk/edit?usp=drivesdk> Draft statement

 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BeDZCjzm9rRixp0hERisjOOuWlGUwxdZS7gQ8RBTADk/edit?usp=drivesdk> docs.google.com

El sept 9, 2026, a la(s) 17:03, Niels ten Oever <00001ded0bc22afd-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu <mailto:00001ded0bc22afd-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> > escribió:

Hi all,

Based on the discussion we just had in the policy meeting, I share here a draft statement:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZdeCneOyDTnwLEebU1wVhkBqSBz37REBFeh6FAEOVTI/edit?usp=sharing

My drafting muscle is a bit rusty, but these two pages could perhaps be a good skeleton.

The main tone and message is asking why ISOC, PIR, and Digital Identity did what they did and what process they followed, especially taking into account the public interest commitments they have made in the past.

I hope this helps.

Best,

Niels

-- 
Niels ten Oever, PhD
Co-Principal Investigator - critical infrastructure lab - University of Amsterdam
Assistant Professor - Department of European Studies - University of Amsterdam

W: https://criticalinfralab.net
W: https://nielstenoever.net
PGP: 4254 ECD5 D4CF F6AF 8B91 0D9F EFAD 2E49 CC90 C10C

Pedro de Perdigão Lana

Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.nic.br/> ,  Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/> )

Doutor em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra), 

Vice-presidente da ISOC Brasil <https://www.isoc.org.br/> . NCUC <https://www.ncuc.org>  EC (ICANN). Secretário Executivo do IODA.

Essa mensagem é restrita ao remetente e destinatário(s). Se recebida por engano, favor responder informando o erro.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260910/2f0bd0ad/attachment-0001.htm>