Andrew, revocation of a ccTLD does not fall under the community mechanisms, unless I am gravely mistaken. We all failed to understand some of the past revocations by ICANN , some of which form the basis of Nigel's not so hypothetical narrative. The human right issue is not whether ICANN deals with a government or actually anybody abusing human rights, but how ICANN deals with the parties affected by its actions. This, by the way, turns all back what I have already said and written in the beginning of the year we should not try and redesign a big stick to wave at ICANN so they behave, we should change ICANN so they behave without the stick. But then, perhaps this would also be against the interests of some or other national internet industry lobby. el On 2015-11-05 17:27, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
Again, from someone not close to this recently so feel free to ignore.
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
ICANN takes away the management of a ccTLD from a ccTLD manager in a third world country based on false representations from a third party.
[…]
It seems to me that there may be a number of ICANN commitments, values, and bylaws that could have been violated under this hypothetical sketch. I'm assuming that the goal is to ensure the management of the TLD (cc or otherwise) remains with the legitimate party, rather than someone else.
I'm trying to understand how fundamental rights help solve the operational problem. If the community mechanisms to force ICANN to behave correctly in this counterfactual situation works, then how do expressions of fundamental rights help? IF the mechanisms do _not_ work without rights, why will they work with them (at least in a way that is useful -- I guess I'm assuming that a satisfactory resolution several years and bankrupting tribunals later doesn't count as "useful").
If the problem is not operational, then I confess I don't understand why ICANN is involved at all: surely the point of the many other proposed accountability measures for ICANN is exactly to keep it appropriately limited to its critical but narrow operational job?
I also wonder what one is supposed to do in the case where someone complains that ICANN is collaborating with a government that is abusing human rights. It seems to me that if one focusses on the operational questions for the _practical_ protection of rights, then keeping ICANN's range of decision limited to its responsibilities makes most of the cases where rights would be a problem go away, because ICANN already doesn't have the ability to do anything awful.
Again, I don't mean to speak out of turn.
Best regards,
A
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/