[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] GigaOM article : Louis Vuitton asks for SOPA-like seizure of hundreds of websites
Karl Auerbach
karl at cavebear.com
Mon May 14 20:29:16 UTC 2012
On 05/14/2012 12:59 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> Note the recommendation:
>
> The RT is in favour of " *a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain
> of **contractual
> agreements with registries, registrars, and registrants to require the
> **provision
> and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data*.".
That is a far cry from a third-party-beneficiary rule.
The sentence you quote essentially says "The RT is in favour of the
status quo".
What Bill S. was asking for was a third party beneficiary provision that
gives designated third party individuals or classes (who might not even
be registrants, registrars, or registries - or anybody else associated
with ICANN) the power to enforce the contractual terms even if one of
the actual parties to the contract doesn't come forward to enforce it
itself.
In general I think that ICANN has done a lousy job in that it has very
expressly rejected third party beneficiary rights in anything it does
ever since it was formed. We saw that happen most forcefully in the
RegisterFly situation where ICANN failed to enforce contract terms while
registrants were being harmed left and right.
(I do, however, believe that the whois is a privacy disaster, that the
report contains a revisionist history to support its conclusions, that
there are plenty of means to go after evil doers even if those means
might be less convenient than a rope and a nearby tree, and that there
is a lot of post hoc ergo hoc logic going in that those who are accused
are stripped of protections merely because they have been accused.)
--karl--
More information about the At-Large
mailing list