ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

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

[ga] RAA and GNSO New gTLD PDP

  • To: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [ga] RAA and GNSO New gTLD PDP
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=I9YJOQW6dRlXKq/pqIrnyqLZk8QrhxdW8mK40PIF4Cfw2xozQ7kQ34mx+bagAubwHtz6ohNL8r/dTIfVeUh5zkPCaDTXjJcR8LAjpCambZuFw4BNgrZCDANTDvPEInOrZdtqmSnvaxY3owp+ToWETvTHmsqXAMAyQTeqeJJ6e8w=;
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Karl just wrote this on a different thread but pertaining mostly to the two subjects above;
   
  "Would you be willing to support the inclusion of a provision into 
ICANN's registrar and registry contracts that gives to registrants an 
explicit role as third party beneficiaries with right to bring legal 
action to enforce the terms of those agreements even if ICANN or the 
registrar or registry choses not to?"
   
  In my mind I see this as a watershed issue and proposal.
  I would really like to know why this concept would be alien to ICANN as a whole.
  It seems perfectly logical to me.
   
  Eric


       
---------------------------------
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>