[At-Large] News on the .health TLD allocation

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Thu Sep 4 08:31:38 UTC 2014

That would have been the sensible thing to do; third party beneficiary
rights. But for those that would matter, an aggrieved party needed first to
convince ICANN that the commitment was breached. And then it is solely
ICANN that had standing to determine what remedy to seek, if any.  All this
after you're invited to navigate all the  squirelly 'opt outs' in some of

On the balance of those facts, I determined they wouldn't be worth warm

Reminded me of what my grandmother told me about the perils of buying a
sewing machine from England back in the 50's. You could get one without the
belt or the gear, even the needle.  Then when you inquired - via snail
mail! - you get the response 'so very sorry, that <piece> was not a part of
the bundle. You have to buy that separately'.


Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:

> On 09/03/2014 03:36 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> > They form part of the contract and are enforceable...
> Well maybe yes and maybe no.
> Did ICANN ever put third party beneficiary rights into its contracts
> with registries and registrars?
> If not then only the actual parties to the contract will have the power
> to march into court and demand enforcement of the contractual terms.
> Everyone else will lack "standing" and will only be able to watch from
> the sidelines and gnash teeth.
>         --karl--
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the At-Large mailing list