[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dispute resolution (fwd)

Forwarded message:
> From sob@newdev.harvard.edu Sat Dec 21 17:47:33 1996
> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 20:45:55 -0500 (EST)
> From: Scott Bradner <sob@newdev.harvard.edu>
> Message-Id: <199612220145.UAA02329@newdev.harvard.edu>
> To: thomst@netcom.com
> Subject: Re: Dispute resolution
> 
> Thom,
> 	the problem with your idea is that the organization who protests
> the assignment is not a party to the arbitration agreement & may
> feel no obligation to follow it.

No question about that.  However, if an agreement to abide by binding
arbitration is made a *requirement* for obtaining SLD registration, the
one thing they definitely could not do is to obtain the SLD registration 
for themselves.  It's certainly true that a disputant could sue the SLD-
holder of record, the registrar and/or ISOC, but that option is open to
them *now*, and it would continue to be open to them under the current
draft proposal.

Regards,

Thom Stark

Email:  thomst@netcom.com              URL:  http://www.dnai.com/~thomst
             finger thomst@netcom.com for my PGP Public Key

(510) 526-9600 voice       STARK  REALITIES           fax (510) 526-9063
POB 457                     El Cerrito, CA                ZIP 94530-0457