<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] RAA
- To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] RAA
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=NKveG4ei/9QnY6hWqeIzTrfdOwKoKMZH5dftxz01VOzW2lG6NWTJiNGILPeiEIrHRnlghAy0+bkDlznchzt9bUVbkozhQgEIbR9EBJtAlxuoZd5EMxE4Pi5OFEjJSP2gEUaL/I3n/hVpZP0hZhCXO4wv+EQO+0wfMMeuPQz+y0o=;
- In-reply-to: <464A2F8F.2010707@cavebear.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Karl,
Could you kindly link us up to that contract and point out the provision you are referring to.
I am not as up to speed on the contracts as I should be. Perhaps you would just link us over to your site if you have it there.
Eric
Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hugh Dierker wrote:
> I am convinced that this is going to be a very hot topic with very
> little registrant/individual user representation in the formal ICANN
> task forces and WGs. too many view the RAA as a contract between the
> parties with no Third Party Beneficiary Rights. I believe the opposite
> is true; That the RAA is only a contract for the benefit of the
> individual domain name holder.
The contract explicitly disclaims third party beneficiary rights/status.
That tends to be the determining factor.
ICANN could try to change it, but it may require the consent of the
registrar/registry involved unless it can somehow become a "consensus policy"
to which the registrar/registry has agreed to accept in advance.
Thank ICANN's staff and law firm for this one; it was never an explicit
question before the board.
--karl--
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|