Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

To be more precise...that gets you only part of the way. There is
another party to the transaction who may or may not be bound by this. 
and the 'may or may not'...could vary a lot depending on the fact
pattern.

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> 
> To be more precise (and perhaps less bold ;) Registrars and Registries have
> agreed to the terms under which transfers will be conducted according to the
> laws in the jurisdictions that I mentioned. Everything else flows from
> there.
> 
> -rwr
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <mcade@att.com>;
> <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
> <RJS@lojo.co.nz>; <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>; <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>;
> <crusso@verisign.com>; <mcf@uwm.edu>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
> <james.love@cptech.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> 
> > actually...I beg to differ. The relevant jurisdiction claimed by one
> > party is that. Just wait till it goes to court before making such bold
> > assertions please?
> >
> > agreement on the rest.
> >
> >
> > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is an international environment we are dealing with here folks.
> A
> > > > good chunk of the world does not even operate under common law...so
> > > > agency law as Ross learned it...is totally inapplicable. there are
> > > > analogous concepts, yes. but the correspondence and statute, and
> caselaw
> > > > and interpretation and legal foundations...are completely different.
> > >
> > > Actually no - for 99% of the transfers, the relevant jurisdiction is
> > > Virginia or Delaware.
> > >
> > > > I think Danny Younger makes a good point.  So why not focus on coming
> up
> > > > with a definition we all want to see inserted into contractual terms
> > > > like the agreements between registrant and registrar, etc?
> > >
> > > I think that's the whole purpose of this exercise. Problem being,
> despite
> > > the constant criticism from some quarters, there isn't a lot of drafting
> > > going on. The core of a successful task force will always be competing
> > > proposals surrounding by cogent debate. Without it, nothing effective
> can
> > > really be accomplished.
> > >
> > > I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as you have
> described
> > > Dan. The TF needs this.
> > >
> > > -rwr
> >
> > --
> > Dan Steinberg
> >
> > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> > Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca

-- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
--
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