[CCWG-ACCT] yet another human rights question

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Mon Jul 27 10:33:47 UTC 2015

> accept them being traded off against other objectives):
> i) an obligation "to carry out its activities in conformity with
> relevant principles of international law", which includes human rights
> law; and

I would feel much more reassured had you been a position to be able to 
put the closing double quote where the semicolon is.

Look, ICANN's lawyers argued strongly that international law does not 
apply to ICANN in ICM Registry -v- ICANN.

It took a learned jurist in the IRP process to remind them otherwise -- 
since ICANN's founders has put this commitment in its bylaws, it is 
legally bound to uphold it.

But without effective accountability measures available to those without 
deep pockets, it remains unsatisfactory -- both .XXX and .AFRICA IRPs, 
coupled with

(a) the derision shown by the previous CEO towards, and
(b) the ineffectivess of the current CEO in acheiving

the engagement of fundamental rights inside ICANN

has shown the corporate culture of ICANN is actually inimical to the 
promotion of fundamental rights.

My view is that upholding fundamental rights is not simple 'motherhood 
and apple pie'.

It needs to be embedded so that any affected person effectively may hold 
the corporation accountable for infringing, or failing to protect, 
fundamental rights; ICANN holding a special position as an international 
multistakeholder body.

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list