Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Suggestion: Name the public as intended beneficiary of RALO MOUs
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
> 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.
I must say that this concept of a private contract between A and B which
can be used by a third party C for sueing A is something a bit out of my
understanding, I think there's nothing like that in Italy... if it's a
norm that affects the public then it has to be a law or public
regulation, and if it is a private contract then it's only a matter
between the signatories to the contract. We've always conceived the MoU
as a technical agreement to regulate the representation of ALSes inside
ICANN, but not as a commitment of ICANN towards the registrant
community, which should come through other means. Anyway, you (the ALSes
from NA) should draft the NA MoU in any way that suits your local legal
culture.
OTOH, in the absence of incorporation of the RALO, I think that the MoU
would be a binding legal agreement for the ALSes who sign it, and for ICANN.
--
vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------
--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org
www.icannalac.org