[Wp4] New report on ICANN and Human Rights

[Paul Twomey]

Nigel

Be clear I am not getting into the policy issue of transfers at all.   
And certainly not the 1999-2003 period when I was a poor GAC chair :)

Paul

On 10/30/15 7:54 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Wp4 mailing list
> Wp4 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4
>

-- 
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P at cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com