On 05/14/2012 12:59 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
Note the recommendation:
The RT is in favour of " *a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain of **contractual agreements with registries, registrars, and registrants to require the **provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data*.".
That is a far cry from a third-party-beneficiary rule. The sentence you quote essentially says "The RT is in favour of the status quo". What Bill S. was asking for was a third party beneficiary provision that gives designated third party individuals or classes (who might not even be registrants, registrars, or registries - or anybody else associated with ICANN) the power to enforce the contractual terms even if one of the actual parties to the contract doesn't come forward to enforce it itself. In general I think that ICANN has done a lousy job in that it has very expressly rejected third party beneficiary rights in anything it does ever since it was formed. We saw that happen most forcefully in the RegisterFly situation where ICANN failed to enforce contract terms while registrants were being harmed left and right. (I do, however, believe that the whois is a privacy disaster, that the report contains a revisionist history to support its conclusions, that there are plenty of means to go after evil doers even if those means might be less convenient than a rope and a nearby tree, and that there is a lot of post hoc ergo hoc logic going in that those who are accused are stripped of protections merely because they have been accused.) --karl--