I think this starts from entirely the wrong approach. It starts from the premise of "what are we (qua ICANN) legally OBLIGED to do" not "what we (in our special position) SHOULD be doing" (i.e. to ensure that ICANN, and all its works, comply with, and promote international human rights standards. I think we should focus on the latter, and embed it in an Overriding Objective (with apologies to Lord Woolf for stealing the term) But to answer the question asked:- The USA, just like the UK, is a dualist state. International treaties are simply not binding on the United States Government, their provisions requiring to be transposed into domestic law to fulfil the treaty obligation. This contrasts clearly with countries such as France or the Netherlands, which are monist states. Meaning international treaties automatically become incorporated into binding domestic law, following ratification. To those used to the civil law, the dualist approach of the common-law world is puzzling. After all why would a state enter into a solemn binding international agreemnt it was not prepared to honour. (This can been seen as a form of estoppel, if further analysis was needed). It seems clear, however, that NTIA *ITSELF* is not bound by international law, absent a Federal statute incorporating specific treaty obligations. Thus, it is submitted, there can be no obligations ever imported onto ICANN under international law simply because of the IANA contract. Any such obligations, such as they are, arise elsewhere, such as the Articles, as Christopher helpfully highlighted. But go ahead, do let's spend more of ICANN's money with Sidley and Austin -- the more they come to understand ICANN, the more there will be a credible alternative to Jones, Day when ICANN next tenders out the role of external counsel. On 27/07/15 14:02, Edward Morris wrote:
Once we have the answer to that question I think we could have a more meaningful discussion on this matter.