<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] RAA
- To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] RAA
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:56:55 -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=CI7sb62XpNOE7kjfHxzJcRQI4rXBIX/AMsgKM8bqWtJJSi+Tvc3ME+yS16kTaJoUTIXtdMNO11G+SvbNIwIPuheqaqU42YjnAjmn9Ep6pukOkpyRHB1qDBuhaz40KBfq07mKADoXCllS4I1FuSuKDQLPMnKQiTtYYKVs3wfKSrw=;
- In-reply-to: <464AC012.70608@cavebear.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This makes me see bloody red. This portion of the contract is unconscionable and against public policy and must be stricken. I hope the lawyers against registerFly are on this like flies on (well you get picture)
"5.10 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement shall not be construed to create any obligation by either ICANN or Registrar to any non-party to this Agreement, including any Registered Name Holder".
Eric
Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hugh Dierker wrote:
> Could you kindly link us up to that contract and point out the provision
> you are referring to.
Take a look at section 5.10 of
http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm
--karl--
---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|