In other words, "Does NTIA's disengagement introduce risk that ICANN could disregard its existing human rights obligations under international law?"
Whilst I appreciate the creative restatement, this is most certainly NOT the question. ICANN *has* no existing human rights obligations under international law. Zero. Zip. Nada. And that is of concern. It has some fundamental rights obligations under California Law and the Art. 4 of the Articles of Association, but this has proved woolly and less than effective. (Ask both ICM and DCA about whether ICANN, in the exercise of discretion as a decision-maker respects the fair hearing right, for example). We need to somehow infuse ICANN with a culture of respect for fundamental rights, such as the right to intellectual property (currently well covered) and the rights to fair hearing, the right to privacy and the right to free expression (the latter rights covered much less so than the former).