On 2014-09-04 10:31 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
That would have been the sensible thing to do; third party beneficiary rights. But for those that would matter, an aggrieved party needed first to convince ICANN that the commitment was breached. And then it is solely ICANN that had standing to determine what remedy to seek, if any. All this after you're invited to navigate all the squirelly 'opt outs' in some of them!
Very true, much like #3.7.7.3 of the RAA: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1548571.html
On the balance of those facts, I determined they wouldn't be worth warm spit.
Reminded me of what my grandmother told me about the perils of buying a sewing machine from England back in the 50's. You could get one without the belt or the gear, even the needle. Then when you inquired - via snail mail! - you get the response 'so very sorry, that <piece> was not a part of the bundle. You have to buy that separately'.
Off topic, but very true. Also when it comes to warranties. 5 years warranty, but you have to ship it off to distant location at you own cost and special packaging to claim. Cost of shipping and packaging is 50% more than a new one. There are some analogies here as well where the costs of relief sought, costs more than the harm done. Derek