[Wp4] Fwd: Re: [] Variety of formulation for Human Rights bylaw that were made. - corrected

[Nigel Roberts]

On 12/08/15 19:03, Paul Twomey wrote:

> into the bylaws we will directing the attention of various parties to
> new ways to try to halt/affect ICANN decisions and operations.  This may
> be a good thing

I submit that it is.


 >            but we need to consider the implications very carefully.

I think this is correct.


> real issue on ccTLD agreements.    I have to say that I am increasingly
> wondering whether at least the ccTLD links should be exempted or at
> least carefully prescribed.

I suggest it is the ccTLD area where (careful) attention to respect for 
fundamental rights IS needed.

ICANN has no role in directing how a ccTLD manager sets their policy.

That is a matter for subsidiarity and is clearly delineated in the ICANN 
bylaws setting up the ccNSO, so how this affects ICANN, is principally, 
how it affects the IANA role, and the policy making role.

As a former CEO of ICANN, from a particular timeframe, you 
understandably have a certain Weltanschaung - and perhaps it is one 
which views ICANN as giving out the authority to run a ccTLD.  I'm not 
sure that this is the correct view.

But I am certain that whatever the source authority of ICANN's role, 
(i.e. a contract with the US government, tablets of stone from God etc), 
that ICANN surely needs embrace certain minimum standards in all its 
work (i.e gTLD and ccTLD) which, inter alia, must include

- Protection of Property (including intellectual property) Rights
- Protection of Private and Family Life
- Protection of Free Expression
- Right to fair hearing before independent and impartial tribunal

And .AFRICA (and before that .XXX) is not the first time ICANN has been 
see to be lacking in the latter, of particular note.