[CCWG-ACCT] Report on Lawyers Call re Human Rights

[Nigel Roberts]

Those laws certainly apply.  But they are not laws on human rights.

It seems to me that the correct understanding of the current position is 
that the CCWG intends that ICANN should be free of any human rights 
obligations that are not imposed on private sector bodies by US domestic 
legislation.


On 22/01/16 07:34, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I'm referring to the same laws as Holly was. I have no idea why you
> think these do not apply to "non-state actors" -- that's exactly who
> they are supposed to apply to.
>
> I also have no idea why you apparently believe ICANN is currently bound
> by laws that apply to "state actors."  ICANN is not currently a state
> actor.  It is a private non-profit corporation incorporated and
> domiciled in the State of California which performs certain functions
> under a contract with the US Government.  The contract includes a large
> number of provisions that apply to ICANN and all other government
> contractors, none of which make ICANN a "state actor."
>
> Greg
> On Friday, January 22, 2016, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>
>     Please quote your authority that any such laws exist in the US with
>     effect on non-state actors.
>
>         (including applicable laws that protect Human Rights) will not
>         change with the transition.
>
>