On 05/04/2013 05:30 PM, Timothe Litt wrote: >> It is unimaginable for a party to sign a contract which allows the >> other party to unilaterally change the terms of the contract. > One might think so. One might even wish it were so. But it happens every day. > You probably clicked-through such language many times when signing-up for > on-line services. Attorneys automatically include these provisions in every > draft and try to minimize what they give up in negotiations when they are > noticed - when they have to negotiate. I agree that company representatives (lawyers, negotiators, and the like) would always attempt to get the best deal possible for their principals. That is what they are expected to do. Negotiations would always be for getting the best deal possible for each party. In this case, the clause that ICANN has put in the contract had been noticed from the very beginning and was told by the other party(ies) that it is not acceptable. > Cheer Verisign on if you like - the drafting process as presented in that letter > seems reprehensible. But it is worth noting that if Verisign and the registrars > win this battle, the benefit will not filter down to your agreement with them. > Verisign will still put 'we can unilaterally change this agreement' in the > end-user agreement for your domain name, and the use of their website. And they > won't even notice the inconsistency - unless we say something. I am cheering Verisign in this case not because it is Verisign but because it is against unilateralism in the contract. Let us set aside the fact that Verisign has been guilty of unilateralism itself and would gladly accept a contract where it has a unilateral right to modify an agreement. The point is that in this agreement, ICANN is again showing the streak of unilateralism that we in the NCUC had been against in the past. It also appears that the complaints of Verisign are shared by other registries which include the new gTLDs ("small-not-google-sized" dot brands, in particular who currently have no power in the negotiation process). I grant you that for certain matters (e.g. registrant rights against registries/registrars), that the registries would listen to ICANN more than to individual registrants. It is logical for NCUC to side with ICANN to have the "unilateral right" to amend the contract(s) with the registries/registrars only if we believe/assume that ICANN will use this unilateral right to fight for "our rights." What happens when it doesn't? If this unilateral right to amend the contract had clauses when it could be exercised, then it would be more palatable. Something along the lines of "to protect the rights of registrants", "to ensure the security and stability of the Internet", and the like would OK with me. -- Bombim Cadiz ***************************************** * Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) -- * * No windows. No gates. It is open. * * No Bill. It is Free. * *****************************************