[EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules

Nick Ashton-Hart nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Wed May 9 04:23:19 EDT 2007


I suspect that your form of words would have the same effect, however,
you can probably appreciate that having a different form of words for
one organisation than for all the others may raise unintended
questions and the others may query why one group gets to make up a
different form of words than those they have used.

On 09/05/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler at does-not-exist.org> wrote:
> In that case, why the formal-sounding language in the signing
> statement?
>
> I'd have much less trouble signing and selling a note that says
> FITUG will in good faith perform the duties outlined in the MOU.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler   <roessler at does-not-exist.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2007-05-08 23:51:00 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> > From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart at icann.org>
> > To: Thomas Roessler <roessler at does-not-exist.org>
> > Cc: Roberto Gaetano <roberto at icann.org>,
> >       Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:51:00 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules
> > Reply-To: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
> > X-Spam-Level:
> > X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>


-- 
-- 
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



More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list