[At-Large] top 10 reasons why the waiver is a bad idea
morej1 at mac.com
Thu Apr 28 16:52:35 UTC 2022
Your points are well taken. I am a US lawyer, but I do not think the lawyers should have the final say on something like this. Unfortunately I have found that the legal departments of ISOC and ICANN go overboard with loading on things like this waiver.
The waiver is not even that useful since lawsuits can still be initiated, which probably ICANN would want to settle rather than be embarrassed.
I would ask also whether there has ever been an instance where ICANN was sued for something that happended at one of its events.
And, if no one owns the waiver, then it should be junked.
> On Apr 28, 2022, at 10:31 AM, Marita Moll via At-Large <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
> With apologies to former late show host David Letterman and thanks to all those who provided input, here are my top 10 reasons why this waiver is a bad idea for ICANN and for the community:
> 10. It is insensitive to the global community as it can be interpreted as an exportation of U.S.-based litigious culture
> 9. It disregards the fact that participants at ICANN meetings have always willingly and knowingly accepted personal responsibility for health issues that arise during meetings
> 8. It is a disincentive to attending ICANN meetings in person, thereby damaging the ability of the community to work together
> 7. Concerns which have arisen throughout the community about the broad scope of the waiver are not being addressed – including legal opinions warning potential participants against signing.
> 6. No one is taking ownership of this waiver. The Board position on it is unclear
> 5. There has been no general explanation to the community or any attempt seek buy-in for this waiver
> 4. This kind of blanket waiver could be unenforceable and in that case, serves only as intimidation
> 3. The waiver infringes on individual rights
> 2. ICANN appears to be abandoning its duty of care to the participating community who are voluntarily contributing their time and energy to fulfilling ICANN's mandate to operate as a bottom-up multistakeholder organization
> Top reason why this waiver is a really bad idea:
> 1. It leaves a lasting unpleasant taste in the mouths of participants contributing to ICANN's multistakeholder model -- which is presented as a source of pride and accomplishment to the internet governance community.
> Marita (now signing off on this topic -- thanks for bearing with me)
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large