[dns-operations] Enabling the IPv6-only Internet: the Final TLDs

[Warren Kumari]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:07 AM,  <sthaug at nethelp.no> wrote:
>> > Apart from maybe .us, no ccTLD has a contract with ICANN.
>>
>> As with most things related to ICANN, it's more complicated than that: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds/cctlds-en shows a number of different forms of agreements with different terms.
>
> And some of the forms contain language stating in very explicit terms
> that it is *not* a contract. See for instance
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/norid-icann-letters-17jul06-en.pdf
>
> "It is the intention of both parties that this exchange of lettes will
> not form the basis for any claim for any legal or equitable relief,
> give rise to a binding contract or create reliance on the part of
> either party. Nothing contained in this letter shall give rise to any
> liability, monetary or otherwise, by either one of us to the other."
>
> Publishing this under the heading "ccTLD Agreements" seems like a bit
> of a stretch to me...

Really? Not to me...

The page doesn't claim to be "ccTLD Signed Contracts"... We can both
agree that the sky is blue (or that I'm awesome) -- that doesn't mean
that we've entered into some sort of binding contract, forming the
basis for any claim for any legal or equitable relief - we've just
agreed on something, and that's worth noting.

W


>
> Steinar Haug, AS 2116
> _______________________________________________
> dns-operations mailing list
> dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
> dns-jobs mailing list
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf