[EURO-Discuss] transparency on changes of rules
nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Wed May 9 17:27:26 EDT 2007
This is not the interpretation of the ICANN GCs office I'm afraid.
Since the MoU is missing key elements of an enforceable contract such
as a jurisdiction, as well as enforcement provisions, this reinforces
that it is meant to be a good-faith agreement between the parties.
I take your point in the last paragraph ;)
On 09/05/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu> wrote:
> Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto:
> > 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.
> AFAIK, a piece of paper signed by the legal representatives of the
> parties is a private contract, is binding upon the parties, and can be
> enforced in courts (though there might be reasons why the court might
> declare the contract void, but you'd have to go to court to see what
> they think of it).
> Personally, not being a lawyer, I perceived the MoU as a binding
> contract for those who sign it, ICANN included. If ICANN ever tried to
> escape its obligations... I would consider sueing it :-)
> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------
> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
PO Box 32160
London N4 2XY
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 /
Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
More information about the EURO-Discuss