On 31/07/2015 11:11, Nigel Roberts wrote:
As this applies to ICANN, do you think this creates a duty to use its business relationships with Registries and Registrars seek to prevent human rights abuses by domain registrants?
There are two extremely important aspects of human rights law comes in to play here, called the "margin of appreciation", and, more importantly, "proportionality".
So if you ask me, literally, does this create a *duty* upon ICANN to use business relationships to seek to prevent human rights abuses by registrants, the answer, is, precisely, "No".
Dissection and analysis of this further, is a detailed matter, on which I'm happy to expound at the right time, in the right place.
But I would suggest it's entirely appropriate that ICANN's business and policy decisions be informed by a culture of respect for, and advancement of, fundamental rights.
If you consider how this answer could be read you will see why there is such wariness about accepting any HR language at all. Surely you can see that the prospect of ICANN developing policies to examine the compliance of domain registrants with human rights, and to sanction non-compliance, in the same way ICANN policy currently examines compliance with trademark rights and sanctions non-compliance, is something that many of us consider enirely outside ICANN's proper mandate? Perhaps that wasn't the outcome you had in mind. But your reply can certainly be read that way, and if it wasn't what you intended I'm not sure what it would mean in practice. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA