[EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

That's easy - just because something isn't meant to be enforceable in
a court doesn't mean that the parties aren't bound to honour it. They
are; it is an agreement made in good faith, and the parties agree to
operate in good faith.

On 08/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler at does-not-exist.org> wrote:
> On 2007-05-08 23:36:29 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>
> >> On the one hand, there still isn't a clear indication what the
> >> status of the MoU really is -- is it binding, on whom, and so
> >> on. That would have been a set of questions that should have
> >> been resolved before the MoU was formally signed.
>
> > I'm afraid the above isn't a correct statement. The MoU is binding
> > upon those who signed it. It is not binding upon those who have not.
>
> In that case, I'm awaiting your explanation what the word "binding"
> means when it comes to an agreement that is "not intended as a
> contract for enforcement".
>
> (Your words, 28 March, archived at [1].)
>
> 1. http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007-March/000191.html
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler   <roessler at does-not-exist.org>
>


-- 
-- 
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 at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com /
Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart