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