[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

Again, from someone not close to this recently so feel free to ignore.

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> 
> ICANN takes away the management of a ccTLD from a ccTLD manager in a
> third world country based on false representations from a third party.
[…]

It seems to me that there may be a number of ICANN commitments,
values, and bylaws that could have been violated under this
hypothetical sketch.  I'm assuming that the goal is to ensure the
management of the TLD (cc or otherwise) remains with the legitimate
party, rather than someone else.

I'm trying to understand how fundamental rights help solve the
operational problem.  If the community mechanisms to force ICANN to
behave correctly in this counterfactual situation works, then how do
expressions of fundamental rights help?  IF the mechanisms do _not_
work without rights, why will they work with them (at least in a way
that is useful -- I guess I'm assuming that a satisfactory resolution
several years and bankrupting tribunals later doesn't count as
"useful").

If the problem is not operational, then I confess I don't understand
why ICANN is involved at all: surely the point of the many other
proposed accountability measures for ICANN is exactly to keep it
appropriately limited to its critical but narrow operational job?

I also wonder what one is supposed to do in the case where someone
complains that ICANN is collaborating with a government that is
abusing human rights.  It seems to me that if one focusses on the
operational questions for the _practical_ protection of rights, then
keeping ICANN's range of decision limited to its responsibilities
makes most of the cases where rights would be a problem go away,
because ICANN already doesn't have the ability to do anything awful.

Again, I don't mean to speak out of turn.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com