Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Suggestion: Name the public as intended beneficiary of RALO MOUs
Pardon me, but if it's not a binding agreement, namely a contract, what's the
point to anyone signing it? To create pretty ceremony?
Each of the parties to the agreement assumes obligations to the other. In
addition, since those obligations are for the express benefit of individual
Internet users, they're enforceable by those users. Otherwise, we're just
creating more paper for thre landfills and more bureaucracy to prevent the
individual's voice from being heard.
--Wendy
-- sent from the TreoPod --
Wendy Seltzer wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
cell: 914.374.0613
Brooklyn Law & Berkman Center
-----Original Message-----
From: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nick.ashton-hart@xxxxxxxxx>
Subj: Re: [NA-Discuss] Suggestion: Name the public as intended beneficiary of
RALO MOUs
Date: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:33 am
Size: 2K
To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc: "Michael Maranda" <mmaranda@xxxxxxxx>, na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To clarify, as I have been given to understand the MoUs between ICANN
and the regions is not a contract as that term is understood in law.
It is an agreement, but not of legal standing such as a contract.
I am seeking clarification from the GCs office with respect to the
other points raised and suggested.
What lawsuit do you envisage precisely when below you suggest that the
only obligation of a RALO is to disseminate information? And why would
the individual ALSes wish to sign an MoU that allows any in the
general public to sue them - since they are the other party to ICANN
in the MoU and since it has been said in this chain that one could sue
either the RALO or ICANN.
Perhaps I'm missing something?
On 23/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >Also: What will "expressly enforceable" look like?
> >
> > It wouldn't do anything directly, but it would mean that anyone could
> > bring a lawsuit if ICANN or the RALO breached its contractual
> > obligations. To that end, we should put into the MOU more of the
> > things we've been insisting ICANN do for the at-large public.
>
> :What "contractual obligations" will
> the RALO have? (Is the MOU a contract?)
>
> The world of ICANN is built around contracts rather than public law. In
> that environment, the only way to get anything done is to have an enforceable
> contract right (or to get your views endorsed by someone who does or by a
> sufficiently influential government). The MOU is our chance to establish
> contractual rights for the individual Internet user against ICANN. If we
> don't do that, the RALO will be as useless as every other mode of so-called
> public participation.
>
> : What resources will the RALO have to meet those obligations, and where
> will those resources come from? Will they be sufficient to meeting those
> obligations?
>
> The RALO's obligations are to disseminate information. I was merely
> mentioning them for completeness.
>
> --Wendy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> ---
> Draft MoU with ICANN:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
>
> Draft Operating Principles:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
>
--
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
PO Box 32160
London N4 2XY
United Kingdom
UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
Win IM: ashtonhart@xxxxxxxxxxx / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@xxxxxxx /
Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
--- message truncated ---
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org
www.icannalac.org