Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] DoC Approved .com Agreement

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 30 nov 2006, at 22.11, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Whether or not your assertion is right (i.e, that the task force does
> not address these questions), the fundamental questions I have raised
> are crucial to the work of the task force.  Why continue working on
> items that are outside the scope?  Ignoring the fundamental flaw will
> not make it go away.

Continuing to repeat that it is out of scope does not make it so.
I think that you should take that argument up in another more  
appropriate venue.

> I suppose the Task Force can hypothesize as much as it wants on
> conditions that it would like to see imposed on registry operators if
> that is what it chooses to do, but at the end of the day, that
> discussion will be just academic.  It cannot apply to .com and .net or
> any of the other existing registries.

Again, neither your assertion nor wishing makes it so.  And repeating  
it continuously doesn't make something more true - though it is a  
familiar polemic technique.  Lawyers and the rest of the legal  
establishment will be responsible for the process of determining when  
any consensus policy will become applicable to existing contracts.    
I am not a lawyer, although i grew up surrounded by them, and thus  
know no law.  What I do know is that parties in a case generally are  
not able to define the outcome of a case with accuracy.  All they can  
can do is argue their case.  But the Task Force, and its mailing  
list, is not a court, and thus is not the place to argue your case  
about what can and cannot be applied to existing contracts, just  
renewed contracts, or contracts soon to be reviewed/renewed.


a.