[CCWG-ACCT] yet another human rights question - more gravy for counsel.

Nigel Roberts 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 
the question.

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 mailing list