[Wp4] New report on ICANN and Human Rights

[Nigel Roberts]

I will do my best to be on the call, although it clashes with various 
work committments.

I would caution that the subject of ccTLD delegations his has, in the 
past, been a controversial issue (and is even now the subject of 
potentially precedent-setting litigation at appeal level, involving 
ICANN as Respondent/Appellee).

Admittedly, it has become slightly less controversial since the 
interpretation of policy is much more settled and ICANN is much less 
inclined to act without basis of law.

I do not want today's call to become distracted and deteriorate into a 
debate between ccNSO members** and Paul over the difference between what 
ICANN might have done in 1999-2003 without benefit of law, and today's 
situation where the ccNSO, IANA staff and the ICANN Board have all 
agreed that the Framework (the result of six years hard work by all 
parties concerned, including the GAC) is the definitive construction (as 
lawyers use the term) i.e. 'interpretation' of the policies that govern 
the creation of ccTLDs, and change of ccTLD manager.


RUGGIE
------

Paul raises a really good point, nonetheless: and it's this.

We *should'nt* adopt Ruggie principles blindly simply "because they are 
a good thing", but we should spend some time examining their interaction 
and effect on existing legal relationships over ccTLDs, and existing policy.

So: clearly a matter for WS2. (I personally happen to expect that once 
that work is done, ICANN probably should adopt the Ruggie principles, 
but that is a debate for WS2).

Notwithstanding this, I think there is a baseline below which we cannot 
fall in order to have credibility, and that is the UDHR.#

It is a most unattractive argument to reject, at this critical juncture 
an overarching committement to protect fundamental rights. Particularly 
on the basis that ICANN might wish to (*as it has done in the past*) 
infringe fundamental rights such, just for example, those set out as 
Art. 1 Prot 1 of the ECHR. -- the protection of (intellectual) property.

It's a serious credibility issue.

It's almost of the order of George Bush pulling the pulling out of the 
International Criminal Court in the expectation that in the future, US 
solidiers might face war crimes charges. (Indeed, as subsequent history 
has taught us, with Abu Ghraib and other events, he was, probably entire 
coincidentally, very far-sighted).

And, yes, I wish this was hyperbole on my part, but given the historic 
trust issues with ICANN (which we appear to be past, but should never be 
forgotten) it most certainly is not.




Nigel
--


** NOTE: There are at least 3 members of the FoI WG on this WP4 list.

On 10/30/2015 03:33 AM, Paul Twomey wrote:

>>> I think the best I can do is ask for some time on Friday to explain
>>> the practical steps involved in changes of tld operator (especially a
>>> cctld operator) both through requests for redelegation and also