Re: [NA-Discuss] Suggestion: Name the public as intended beneficiary of RALO MOUs
At 04:54 AM 3/23/2007, Michael Maranda wrote:
I like this suggestion. However, I would want to be sure that community is understood. We're not all on our lonesome in a Hobbesian world. (I know that isnt the intent, nor a necessary reading.) i.e., "General Public" is more than just an aggregation of Individuals.
Also: What will "expressly enforceable" look like?
It wouldn't do anything directly, but it would mean that anyone could bring a lawsuit if ICANN or the RALO breached its contractual obligations. To that end, we should put into the MOU more of the things we've been insisting ICANN do for the at-large public. --Wendy
On 3/22/07, Wendy Seltzer <<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>wendy@seltzer.com > wrote: While we're thinking of third-party beneficiaries in the ICANN accreditation agreements, I'd also suggest it for the RALO MOUs being signed.
Suggested language: "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 [in this region]."
--Wendy
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
On 3/23/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
At 04:54 AM 3/23/2007, Michael Maranda wrote:
I like this suggestion. However, I would want to be sure that community is understood. We're not all on our lonesome in a Hobbesian world. (I know that isnt the intent, nor a necessary reading.) i.e., "General Public" is more than just an aggregation of Individuals.
Also: What will "expressly enforceable" look like?
It wouldn't do anything directly, but it would mean that anyone could bring a lawsuit if ICANN or the RALO breached its contractual obligations. To that end, we should put into the MOU more of the things we've been insisting ICANN do for the at-large public.
--Wendy
What "contractual obligations" will the RALO have? (Is the MOU a contract?) What resources will the RALO have to meet those obligations, and where will those resources come from? Will they be sufficient to meeting those obligations? And regarding putting more into the MOU of what ICANN should be doing.... what can we put into the obligations of the RALO if there are no $ resources directed to the RALO? This brings to mind an analogy: In the USA the States offer an argument against Federal dictates when they are unfunded mandates. -Michael -MM
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
participants (2)
-
Michael Maranda -
Wendy Seltzer