I suspect that your form of words would have the same effect, however, you can probably appreciate that having a different form of words for one organisation than for all the others may raise unintended questions and the others may query why one group gets to make up a different form of words than those they have used. On 09/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:

In that case, why the formal-sounding language in the signing statement?

I'd have much less trouble signing and selling a note that says FITUG will in good faith perform the duties outlined in the MOU.

Regards, -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

On 2007-05-08 23:51:00 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

...

From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> Cc: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org>, Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:51:00 +0100 Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules Reply-To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org X-Spam-Level: X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5

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.

On 08/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:

...

On 2007-05-08 23:36:29 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

...

...

On the one hand, there still isn't a clear indication what the status of the MoU really is -- is it binding, on whom, and so on. That would have been a set of questions that should have been resolved before the MoU was formally signed.

...

I'm afraid the above isn't a correct statement. The MoU is binding upon those who signed it. It is not binding upon those who have not.

In that case, I'm awaiting your explanation what the word "binding" means when it comes to an agreement that is "not intended as a contract for enforcement".

(Your words, 28 March, archived at [1].)

1. http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.or...

-- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

-- -- 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

-- -- 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