[CCWG-ACCT] yet another human rights question - more gravy for counsel.
nigel at channelisles.net
Mon Jul 27 16:19:22 UTC 2015
> In other words, "Does NTIA's disengagement introduce risk that ICANN could disregard its existing human rights obligations under international law?"
Whilst I appreciate the creative restatement, this is most certainly NOT
ICANN *has* no existing human rights obligations under international
law. Zero. Zip. Nada.
And that is of concern.
It has some fundamental rights obligations under California Law and the
Art. 4 of the Articles of Association, but this has proved woolly and
less than effective. (Ask both ICM and DCA about whether ICANN, in the
exercise of discretion as a decision-maker respects the fair hearing
right, for example).
We need to somehow infuse ICANN with a culture of respect for
fundamental rights, such as the right to intellectual property
(currently well covered) and the rights to fair hearing, the right to
privacy and the right to free expression (the latter rights covered much
less so than the former).
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community