Re: [ga] ICANN & transfers

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 09:32 p.m. 29/07/2002 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Vint,
>
>In Bucharest the Board resolved [02.71] to adopt Reconsideration Decision
>02-2 which basically stated that, "Because the "registrar requirements"
>regarding transfers are not included in any contract enforceable by ICANN, it
>is not appropriate that ICANN attempt to enforce them".
>
>While ICANN is not a signatory to the registry-registrar agreements (in which
>transfers are governed by the language of an Exhibit therein), those specific
>agreements are, in fact, appendices that are referenced within the primary
>ICANN-registry agreements to which indeed ICANN is a signatory -- there is
>"linkage", and there is also language that states:  "Entire Agreement. This
>Agreement (including its appendices, which form a part of it) constitutes the
>entire agreement of the parties..."
>
>Obviously I am not a lawyer, but I would think that based on such linkage,
>ICANN does have an implied role in the enforcement of such provisions.  May I
>ask what your view is on this matter?  Registrants clearly have an interest
>in this transfers issue, and probably would want some assurances that someone
>is acting to protect their best interests... is that someone ICANN, or should
>they be turning elsewhere?  Is it part of ICANN's mission to afford such
>protections?

With permission, I would like to add my name to this request for clarity on 
ICANN's role and mission.
Mr Touton, what is ICANN's legal position here?





--Joop

--
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