[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding ICANN's adherence to "international law"

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Arun,


>>  1. Its interesting to note the international instruments the gTLD handbook highlights as 'relevant' mostly involve state parties. Given the absence of specific remedies to the community, the purpose of citing ICANN's adherence to them is unclear. Every corporation, transnational or not, is expected to comply with these treaties as long as their host state is a signatory (the US is not a party to the Child Rights Convention btw)

The context of the list – was that these were used as a basis for dispute resolution on a global basis.   If for example a gTLD name contained a racist phrase – the dispute resolution mechanisms could be used to prevent that top level domain name from being delegated.

In the context of the Articles of Incorporation – you are right that the organization must adhere to local laws that have been created following the agreement to an international treaty.   However through its Articles of Incorporation ICANN is not just limited to those local laws with respect to decision making.   Ie it was intended that it should be possible to challenge an ICANN decision if it was against relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions that may not necessarily be encapsulated in local law.

Note that much of the current reconsideration requests and IRP panel processes are the result of the Board accepting a decision from an independent panel.   What these complainants want is a reconsideration of the original panel decision on its merits – and this is not what the current mechanisms support.



>>  2. The CCWG should distil principles from general instruments, rather than using broad diplomatic jargon like "relevant" international laws. If there are specific international laws that apply to transnational corporations which may prove useful to apply in ICANN's case, those too should be addressed. Happy to contribute in this exercise.

Agreed.   I think it is very important to provide explicit examples where we can.   However it is probably  also useful to including language such as the following is a list of international laws that may apply but the list is not limited to that list.   The overall standard should probably still be " relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions" to allow flexibility if something is missed from the list.   That was the approach  used in the applicant guidebook with respect to the Limited Public Interest dispute process.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
.