Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org fromunrestricted to restricted

[Dale Farmer <Dale@cybercom.net>]

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, at 16:26 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > The charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one)
> > is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the TLD.
> > The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a presumption
> > that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no statement
> > whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be adopted for
> > .org.
>
> A faq (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm) is
> not a contract, sure. But why does ICANN deal with the matter
> in the context of this contract at such length, if it isn't
> relevant? The statements in the faq may have no legal force. But must
> we assume that they are meaningless? And if we do not agree with
> possible *implications* (explicit or not in a contract), why can't we
> protest against them now, before it is too late? The ball is already
> rolling...
>
> Protest is the only answer. See my .sig ...

   Actually, at least in US courts, the documents around the contract do
have some legal force.  When a contract is subject to a lawsuit, and the
contract language is ambiguous on the particular issue(s), the judge will
go to the documents that exist from the contract negotiation process.
These can range from internal memos to media interviews with the parties.
The judge then evaluates them to try and divine the intent of the parties
who created the contract.
    I'm not a lawyer, and thus may be wrong about legalisms.

    --Dale

--
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