[ga] Symmetry, anyone?

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Some quotes from NSI's :

http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/service-agreement.jhtml
 
> 8. DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE POLICY. If you reserved or registered a
>  domain name through us, you agree to be bound by our current domain
>  name dispute policy that is incorporated herein and made a part of this
>  Agreement by reference. The current version of the dispute policy may be
>  found at our Web site:
>  http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/dispute-policy.html. Please take the
>  time to familiarize yourself with that policy.

This is a link to UDRP documents.

If this contract forces the domain holder to be bound by that policy. my
first question is whether the complainant is also bound by it. It seems
to me that a fairly basic criterion of fairness in any dispute resolution
must be that it is binding on an even number of parties, zero or both.

A mechanism that binds one party but not the other is hopelessly flawed.
Is the flaw in UDRP or at NSI?

>  9. DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE POLICY MODIFICATIONS. You agree that
>  we, in our sole discretion, may modify our dispute policy. ...
>  ... You agree that, by maintaining the
>  reservation or registration of your domain name after modifications to the
>  dispute policy become effective, you have agreed to these modifications.
>  You acknowledge that if you do not agree to any such modification, you
>  may terminate this Agreement. We will not refund any fees paid by you if
>  you terminate your Agreement with us.

Good grief. Methinks if they modify their stated policy during a contract,
and expect modifications I find unacceptable to apply to me, then at a
minimum they owe me a full refund. The only questions should be whether they
owe me damages for the disruption as well, and whether I can sue for breach
of contract.

Yes, I know I likely couldn't sue for breach of this one. Their lawyers
wrote it. That's one reason I wouldn't sign it.

This would be acceptable if I had a choice about accepting modifications
made after I signed, had the option of continuing with the original terms.
It might also be OK if it required both them and me to comply with policies
set by a third party, e.g. ICANN. 
 
>  10. DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES. You agree that, if your use of our domain
>  name registration services is challenged by a third party, you will be
>  subject to the provisions specified in our dispute policy in effect at the
>  time of the dispute. You agree that in the event a domain name dispute
>  arises with any third party, you will indemnify and hold us harmless
>  ...

So I'm obligated to comply with this policy, I don't think the other party
is, and I'm expected to agree in advance not to sue the people I have a
contract with if they mess this up. 
 
>  11. AGENTS. You agree that, if your agent ... you are
>  nonetheless bound as a principal by all terms and conditions herein,
>  including the dispute policy.

So does this apply if i register through another registry? Does NSI
consider them 'agents'?

I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on the Internet, but it
seems to me a contract like this is sufficiently flawed that you'd
be crazy to sign it. Other opinions?

Is it part of ICANN's role to ensure that contractors such as NSI
who administer parts of the net act fairly toward reistrants? If
so, would getting this policy revised be a good starting point?
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html