[client com] Fwd: FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Aug 8 22:39:26 UTC 2016

My comments re-sent with an additional note. (thread and attachments
deleted for convenience)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 12:31 PM
Subject: Fwd: FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>

I am re-sending these responses to Kavouss's comments to the list with two

1.  The use of "unanimous" in the preamble was discussed. The reason for
this use is to make it clear that the RIRs must act unanimously as the
"numbers community" "party" to the agreement.  This is language the numbers
community feels comfortable with, and it apparently tracks language used in
the IANA numbers MoU (but I haven't checked). This verbiage may change as
other alternatives are considered, but the concept remains the same.

2.  In response to the comment on Section 6.5 regarding "joint and several
liability," in which Kavouss commented that "joint cannot be associated
with several."  "Joint and several liability" is a fundamental legal
concept and well-understood term, at least under U.S. law.  Here is a
definition from the Cornell Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability  (one of many
available on the web):

Joint and Several Liability

When two or more parties are *jointly and severally liable* for a tortious
act, each party is independently liable for the full extent of the injuries
stemming from the tortious act. Thus, if a plaintiff
<http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/plaintiff> wins a money judgment against
the parties collectively, the plaintiff
<http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/plaintiff> may collect the full value of
the judgment from any one of them. That party may then seek contribution
<http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/contribution> from the other wrong-doers.

For example suppose that A, B, and C negligently
<http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence> injure V. V successfully
sues A, B, and C, for $1,000,000. If the court used a joint and several
liability system, V could demand that A pay V the full $1,000,000. A could
them demand contribution <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/contribution> from
B and C. However, if B or C could not pay, A would be stuck paying the full

Joint and several liability reduces plaintiffs'
<http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/plaintiff> risk that one or more
defendants <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant> are judgment-proof
<http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/judgment-proof> by shifting that risk
onto the other defendants <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant>.
Only if all defendants <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant> are
judgment-proof <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/judgment-proof> will a
plaintiff <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/plaintiff> be unable to
recover anything. However, this system can cause inequities, particularly
where a relatively blameless defendant
<http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant> is forced to bear the
financial burden of an incredibly guilty co-defendant's
<http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/defendant> insolvency.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Revised Community Agreement Draft: 08-05-2016
To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
Cc: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>, Andrew Sullivan <
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <
cwg-stewardship at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20160808/b7ab1d10/attachment.html>

More information about the Cwg-client mailing list