Re: [ga] FW: Fee for disproportionate deletes in proposed .biz contract

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny, I quite agree with you - we have reached a state in ICANN and its 
progeny of registries, registrars, and other denizens of the DNS woods 
in which matters of great import may rest on the the most minute of 
contractual terms.

If the contract says that Verisign is to do steps A then B then C before 
ICANN may do D, then if step B is skipped, or not properly performed, 
then ICANN may perhaps be obligated, or have the option, to *not* do D.

This is not a matter of etiquette.  It's simply a matter of what each 
party to the contract promised to do.  If a party fails to do what it 
promised then perhaps that lapse may be called a "breach" and perhaps 
the other parties may be excused from performing their return obligations.

It's called the law of contracts.  And I'm not sure whether the 
particular contract calls for it to be interpreted under the laws of 
California or some other place.  But it is very likely that whatever 
jurisdiction it might be, there is probably a very clear set of laws, 
refined over hundreds of years of real experience, regarding these kinds 
of contractual matters: The fact that the internet is involved makes no 
difference whatsoever.

		--karl--