Dear Vittorio: This is not the interpretation of the ICANN GCs office I'm afraid. Since the MoU is missing key elements of an enforceable contract such as a jurisdiction, as well as enforcement provisions, this reinforces that it is meant to be a good-faith agreement between the parties. I take your point in the last paragraph ;) On 09/05/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
That's easy - just because something isn't meant to be enforceable in a court doesn't mean that the parties aren't bound to honour it. They are; it is an agreement made in good faith, and the parties agree to operate in good faith.
AFAIK, a piece of paper signed by the legal representatives of the parties is a private contract, is binding upon the parties, and can be enforced in courts (though there might be reasons why the court might declare the contract void, but you'd have to go to court to see what they think of it).
Personally, not being a lawyer, I perceived the MoU as a binding contract for those who sign it, ICANN included. If ICANN ever tried to escape its obligations... I would consider sueing it :-) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart