ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension

  • To: Steven Heath <Steven.Heath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension
  • From: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <1465A9A047FF514D95217900DBB8395401524DCF@wlgexch01.optimation.co.nz>
  • Reply-to: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Steven Heath wrote:

> > [snipped] ....what authority or contract clause will they cite 
> > to pull the contractual plug on the agreement?
>  
> Appendix C of the contract has:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appc-16apr01.htm
> #4
> 
> "4. Nameserver functional specifications
> 
> Nameserver operations for the Registry TLD shall comply with RFC 1034, 1035,
> and 2182."

It is not clear that Verisign has violated any RFC or Internet Standard.  
(By my reading of things, Verisign has not violated any "SHALL"  clause of
any Internet Standard, including those noted above.)  That means that any
dispute over these things will be a long, slow process and the outcome is
hardly determinative.  ICANN's practice of ignoring technical issues makes
it now harder for ICANN to sucessfully argue that such contract terms are
as clear cut as they may seem.

		--karl--






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>