RE: [ga] Voting on List Rules - Vote with proposed changes
On 11:28 14/08/2007, Debbie Garside said: --- From being over used to this kind of threats - still recently on this very list (even of physical threats and anonymous phone calls during the Internet normative process :-)) I can say from experience: 1) when they are serious, threats are in disguise (otherwise they would be legally detrimental to the one making them). You are told: "I am sure you are going to threaten me for something I did and I pretend you did" and then it is claimed you made a threat. You are publicly wrongly alluded facts ignored by others about a third party conciliation, in order to restart a settled dispute. You can be sent public seemingly neutral mails containing sentences that are commonly used in further legal actions by the other party, etc. Legal advisers are paid to be imaginative. 2) there is nothing for the time being more legally complex than online international defamation because one cannot stop a rumor and cannot legally act against all the involved parties nor make the mails and sites removed from archives and search engines. So, such a wording should be carefully crafted by an international lawyer of real caliber. It could then serve as a basis for a "list storming" on an "UDRP" like procedure permitting someone to be "internetly cleaned" from wrong accusations by some kind of acknowledged Juy of Honnor. 3) IANAL but I have some difficulty in understanding what can be a "threat of legal action". I certainly know what is a "warning", and a warning in many law systems is considered as part of a conciliatory process. I can only understand a "threat" as a temptative to use a warning to wrongly influence a conciliatory process, what can only be determined by a Juge. I also know about drum justice being practised in different mailing lists (we had that problem in IDNO about a paid systematic offender, etc.). In fact what worries me most is the attempt by a very small percentage of the participants to this GA to transform the only ICANN open Forum into its most regimented constituency. And doing it via a public yes/death vote without any legitimacy. This would block the possibility of interconstituency debates - except through the formal GNSO body. This kind of additional locking of the ICANN propocess is obviously something Avri can propose to the BoD. However, I am afraid it could only be ignored by Members (and depreacte the authority of the BoD) or lead to an IGF ICANN GA Dynamic Coalition: I am not sure this is something wich would benefit to ICANN. jfc
|