I support Wendy's position. Until such time as
At-Large
directors are seated on the ICANN Board (an
act that would honor the spirit
of the White Paper
upon which ICANN was built), I don't intend to give
an
inch on this point.
Had at-Large Directors been on the Board,
do any of
you think that we would have gone the last five years
without
any registrant data escrow services?!! Do you
think that with At-Large
Directors on the Board that
registrants would still be paying up to $260 to
redeem
a domaine name from the Redemption Grace Period?
I'm not
interested in "playing nice". We need to have
our community protected,
and if legal channels are all
that remain, then I will not support any course
of
action that serves to eliminate third-party
beneficiary
rights.
--- Luc Faubert
<LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
> Hello Wendy,
>
>
Yes, I noticed you put these paragraphs back after I
> deleted
them
> yesterday.
>
> I deleted the paragraphs because of the
unanimous
> agreement of the
> people on our last conference call to
do so, as
> documented in the
> minutes of the call I sent to the
list on 04.29.
>
> I appreciate your concerns. However, the clauses
do
> not represent the
> spirit of mutuality vehiculated in the MOU
and the
> probality that ICANN
> will agree to an MOU carrying these
clauses is zero.
>
> So I would appreciate that you respect the will
of
> the majority and not
> put them back after I delete them
again.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
_________________________________________
> Luc Faubert
> Conseiller
en gouvernance TI et en gestion du
> changement /
> IT governance
and change management consulting
> +1 514 236 5129
>
www.LucFaubert.com
> www.LucFaubert.com/blog
>
www.isoc.qc.ca
> www.ccig.ca
> www.uqbm.qc.ca
>
www.maillons.qc.ca
>
>
>
> > -----Original
Message-----
> > From:
na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org]
>
On Behalf
> > Of Wendy Seltzer
> > Sent: 19 mai 2007
07:44
> > To: NA Discuss
> > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Legal hooks
in the MOU
> >
> > I replaced what I thought were important
terms in
> the draft
> > MoU. Let me explain further why I
think they're
> important.
> >
> > > 6.4 Enforcement.
In recognition of the
> considerable time
> > and effort expended
by the signing organizations,
> ICANN
> > agrees that its
obligations are legally
> enforceable in the
> > courts [or
arbitral forums] of [jurisdiction]. In
> the event
> > of breach,
ICANN shall be liable for the relying
> parties'
> > costs and
fees.
> >
> > I think we want this to be more than just
pretty
> words on
> > paper (or screen), but a set of
enforceable
> obligations to
> > which groups can hold
ICANN. This language
> specifies the
> > recourse in case
of breach.
> >
> > > 6.5 Third-party beneficiaries. This
agreement is
> made for
> > the benefit of the general public.
Individual
> Internet users
> > are its intended beneficiaries,
and its terms are
> expressly
> > enforceable by any member of
the public.
> >
> > The At-Large is supposed to be the
mechanism by
> which the
> > public has input to and
participation in ICANN,
> say the
> > Bylaws. If we're
creating a RALO, we should be
> trying to
> > give the public as
many channels as the structure
> allows --
> > including, where
necessary, the channel of legal
> enforcement.
> > Third-party
beneficiary clauses are the standard
> way to
> > express that
public-benefit aspect.
> >
> > Unfortunately, past experience
with ICANN suggests
> that legal
> > action is the most effective
means to get ICANN's
> attention
> > and action. For recent
examples, ICANN did not
> respond to
> > the RegisterFly
crisis until a class action
> lawsuit was
> > filed. ICANN
renewed Verisign's contract,
> allowing price
> > increases that
harm the end-user, after Verisign
> filed suit.
> >
> >
I'm not suggesting that we sue ICANN, but leaving
> that option
>
> available to us or to others strengthens our
> bargaining
>
> position far short of litigation.
> >
> > These legal
"hooks" could provide much greater
> opportunity
> > for real
progress by this RALO and the public.
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> --Wendy
> >
> > --
> > Wendy Seltzer --
wendy@seltzer.org
> > Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute
Fellow,
> Berkman
> > Center for Internet & Society
>
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
>
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> >
NA-Discuss mailing list
> > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl
>
arge-lists.icann.org
> > ---
> > Draft MoU with ICANN:
>
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
>
>
> > Draft Operating Principles:
> > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
>
>
> > Draft Code of Conduct:
> > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
---
> Draft MoU with ICANN:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
>
>
Draft Operating Principles:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
>
>
Draft Code of Conduct:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking
for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos'
Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
_______________________________________________
NA-Discuss
mailing list
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
---
Draft
MoU with ICANN:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft
Operating Principles:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft
Code of Conduct:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct