[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 

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.)


More information about the At-Large mailing list