<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>While I have doubt that your propositions 1-6 hold in law (none of us is an international lawyer), 7 is sufficient for a WS1 effect.</div><div><br></div><div>Fortunately there is an international law professor at the EuroSSIG where I am teaching this week, and I will ask about 1-6.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">avri</div><div style="font-size:75%"><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div><br><br><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> </div><div>Date:07/28/2015 9:31 AM (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] yet another human rights question </div><div><br></div>Sam<br><br>Thank you for this, apparent confirmation of my earlier analysis.<br><br>To summarise the position :-<br><br>1. International law is never binding on NTIA.<br><br>2. International treaty obligations (a subset of international law) are <br>not binding on NTIA. However, where they create a binding international <br>obligation on the United States, a domestic law obligation must be <br>imposed on the Federal and/or State government officials by way of <br>legislation and/or regulations under existing legislation (which we call <br>secondary legislation, over here).<br><br>3. For there to be any human rights obligation upon ICANN flowing from <br>its relationship with NTIA, it would need to be expressed in the <br>existing contract.<br><br>4. There are no such obligations.<br><br>5. Therefore there are no overt human rights obligations upon ICANN as a <br>result of its relationship with NTIA<br><br>6. Therefore nothing will change IN LAW (for the better or for the <br>worse) in this regard post-transition. It has no obligations beforehand <br> by virtue of the contract, and the same will obtain post-transition.<br><br>7. However, what *will* change is the pragmatic ability of the US <br>Government to bring ICANN into line if it starts to act in ways <br>incompatible with accepted international norms (which private <br>corporations do not have to abide by).<br><br><br><br>Nigel Roberts<br>gg.gg/nigel<br><br><br>PS: Thye existing human rights obligations upon ICANN do not come via <br>its relationship with ICANN but via its obligation to follow its own <br>Articles of Incorporation, and which, I submit, is currently, very <br>weakly effective.<br><br><br><br>On 07/27/2015 09:53 PM, Samantha Eisner wrote:<br>>>From my understanding of government contracting, in general, if there were a treaty obligation that imposed a requirement on the US government and had the force of law, in order for it be promulgated onto ICANN as a US Contractor, it would have to be included in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and then incorporated into the contract. From a quick review of the IANA functions contract, I don't see the specific human rights-related covenants and guidelines that Avri mentioned in her email to be incorporated into the IANA functions contract.<br>><br>> Of course, ICANN is based in the U.S. and complies with all applicable laws and regulations.<br>><br>> Hope this is helpful.<br>><br>> Sam<br>><br>> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>><br>> Date: Monday, July 27, 2015 at 12:34 PM<br>> To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>><br>> Cc: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>><br>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] yet another human rights question<br>><br>> Great question Ed!<br>><br>> Will be certifying it for the lawyers to answer it. Thanks for bringing it up!<br>><br>> Best regards,<br>><br>><br>> León<br>><br>> El 27/07/2015, a las 8:02, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> escribió:<br>><br>> 1. What, if any, obligations towards human rights does ICANN currently have by virtue of it's status as a U.S. government contractor that would not exist as an independent entity?<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br>><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br><br></body>