[CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 6 – Human Rights (first reading)

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

The transition in itself will be an excuse for the crazy people who like
to sue to have a reason for suit.

Any change in the organization opens up possible avenues for those who
like to sue people for personal gain.  And no change we might make is as
big an opportunity as leaving the protection of NTIA.

I would like to see any analysis on the increase of behavioral risk of
crazy people suing, to differentiate between HR and all the other
changes we are making.

Legal liability is one thing.  Behavior of suit happy Americans is quite
another.

avri


On 12-Jan-16 00:46, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> Dear Niels, all, > While written feedback from our lawyers is pending, they have
indicated to us that they do not see additional risks. However, it is
possible that the mere mentioning of HR is perceived as an invitation to
raise claims against the organization, against which ICANN might need to
defend itself. > > We should have our discussion in the light of this
scenario. > > Best, > Thomas > > --- > rickert.net <http://rickert.net>
> > > Am 11.01.2016 um 22:57 schrieb Niels ten Oever
<lists at nielstenoever.net <mailto:lists at nielstenoever.net>>: > >>
> Dear co-chairs,
>
> Thanks a lot for this. Nonetheless there are some issues with the
> document you attached to your email:
>
> 0. Did we already hear back from the lawyers on the folllwing questions:
>
> [quote]
> In their comment to the 3rd CCWG draft report the ICANN Board has
> raised concerns that the proposed inclusion of language in the bylaws
> with respect to human rights might lead to an increased risk of ICANN
> being exposed to legal claims or even law suits.
>
> We would appreciate if you could provide us with a brief assessment
> whether the inclusion of these bylaws would increase the risk of ICANN
> being exposed to legal claims or even law suits vis a vis the current
> situation (taking into account the existing obligations under article
> 4 of ICANNs articles of incorporation), and if so, how such risk could
> be mitigated.
>
> [/quote]
>
> If not, I am not sure how useful it is to have this discussion now.
> Unless we're having the discussion on the basis of the premisse that
> the lawyers had already checked the text before we submitted it for
> comment and we thus can conclude that the risks that are implied by
> the board are not realistic.
>
> 1. Concerning 2a - Why is the GPI discussion conflated with the human
> rights discussion? I don't think it will help solve either of the issues.
>
> 2. Concerning 2b - I think 'defer' is meant here?
>
> Looking forward to the discussion in a few hours.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
> On 01/11/2016 05:01 PM, Alice Jansen wrote:
> > _Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT
>       Co-Chairs_
>
>
>
>       > In preparation for your R/ecommendation 6 – Human Rights
>       (first reading)/ discussion scheduled for your call #76 - Tuesday,
>       12 January 2016 (06:00 – 09:00 UTC) - please find attached the
>       material to review.
>
>       > Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you
>       may have in advance of the call.
>
>
>
>       > Thank you
>
>
>
>       > Mathieu, Thomas, León
>
>
>
>
>
>       > _______________________________________________
>
>       > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>
>       > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>
>
>       https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>> >> _______________________________________________ >>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> >>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >
> _______________________________________________ >
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org >
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus