[WP2] profound apologies and discussion on the human rights issue

Tue Jul 21 13:06:23 UTC 2015

Hi Becky, 

----------------------------------------
 From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:56 PM
To: "egmorris1 at toast.net" <egmorris1 at toast.net>, "wp2 at icann.org" <wp2 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [WP2] profound apologies and discussion on the human rights issue   
   aren't their international treaties establishing privacy and expression rights?  The Universal Declaration, I thought

 Yes, there are a number of treaties and conventions, both hard and soft law, that contain provisions for privacy and free expression. Those provisions, though, only apply to state actors, not to private parties. In the ICM decision the IRP panel decided that customary and generally recognised provisions of international law apply to ICANN. I'd tend to agree with them given the public good nature of the service ICANN provides, but it is debatable. I think it's a bit of a reach to claim that treaty provisions that generally only apply to state actors, such as those of the UDGR and CCPR,  also would apply to ICANN by virtue of the "international law" nomenclature in the Bylaws and mission statement.

 Might I suggest that we refer this to our designated "expert" on international law for his opinion?

 Best,

 Ed

J. Beckwith Burr  

Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer  

1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006  

Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz 

   From: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Reply-To: "egmorris1 at toast.net" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 6:39 AM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, "wp2 at icann.org" <wp2 at icann.org>
Subject: re: [WP2] profound apologies and discussion on the human rights issue

     Hi Becky,

 - I am reminded that in addition to the reference to international law in the Articles of Incorporation, we brought international law into the Mission, Commitments, and Core Values - in fact it is the very first commitment.  Given the strong feelings on both sides of this issue I am wondering whether the current language already reflects ICANN's obligation not to violate human rights?  Thoughts?

 Perhaps. Perhaps not.

 The question turns more on what is customary and what is not customary international law and the specific human right involved. Precedential value of previous ICANN IRP decisions on future ones is also an issue here.

 I view human rights in ICANN as specifically involving three issues: due process, free expression and privacy. The ICM decision specifically referenced due process as being customary international law. I agree. I was also pleased to see their mention of "good faith" as being part of the customary legal acquis. I'd suggest that on occassion this foundational aspect of the law has been a bit questionable regarding ICANN's practice within it's current accountability mechanisms.

 I do not believe free expression and privacy, as I understand them, can be said to have fully reached the status of customary international law. In determining whether something is "customary" state practice needs to be considered. I would find it very difficult to argue that current state practice values free expression and privacy  to the extent western human rights advocates would want or that would be implied were we to include these values more specifically in ICANN's Bylaws.

 The ICM panel states that "it is perfectly appropriate to apply general principles in this IRP even though ICANN is technically a non-profit corporation and ICM is a private corporation". Where international law would apply via general principles or custom I agree with this view. If we are to accord precedential value to previous IRP decisions then due process is already safeguarded and protected in ICANN's bylaws and our mission statement  as it is part of both the general principles and custom of international law which the ICM panel has recognised.  The same can not be said for free expression or privacy rights.

  In the absence of agreement by custom or principle concerning free expression or privacy we are left, per Article 38,  with the law of international conventions if we are to claim that human rights (namely free expression or privacy)  are already comprehensively covered by references to "international law" in ICANN's governing documents. Human rights treaties generally confer obligations upon states, not private parties. Although the ICM panel was willing to impose customary and general principles of international law onto ICANN, largely due to the internet being classified as a "public good",  I do not necessarily believe the same would or should be true of state based international law developed by treaties or accords. Thus I don't believe free expression or privacy are necessarily covered by references to "international law" in ICANN's bylaws.  If we want ICANN to respect those specific human rights, or others, it would be necessary to develop further language for inclusion in ICANN's governing documents.

 Best,

 Ed 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150721/4cc2d72a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attachment 1
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 7235 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/attachments/20150721/4cc2d72a/Attachment1-0001.obj>