Re: Iperdome Press Release!

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Kent,

What if your hypothetical lawsuit comes to conclusion before anyone
becomes a sucessful registrar, but after making application and passing
muster there.  As I understand it, being a successful applicant does NOT
guarantee that you will become a registrar.

The scenario I give that you find so implausible was obviously as you
say made as nasty as possible, but for a purpose--to show the worst case
scenario that is made possible by the one-sided language in the
application contract.  I didn't see CORE mentioned as an Administrative
body, only the Depository and the accounting firm seem to be protected.

BTW, can you think of a reason other than fraud that someone might
attempt in a contract to protect themselves in the event that they
knowingly commit an act of gross negligence.

When I read the application, alarms went off, I mean, I help go over
contracts here sometimes, and I would never allow that language, and I
cannot imagine a lawyer who would recommend that his client sign it.  Of
course, the point here I guess is who's in charge.  It's clearly the ITU
and their lawyers.

Fraud is a nasty thing, but contracts that make fraud allowable are just
plain evil.

Vince Wolodkin

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 21, 1997 at 07:59:55PM -0400, Paul Svensson wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:
> [...]
> > >     So your scenario relies on the ocurrence of a pattern of poorly-done
> > >applications.  This isn't realistic, Vince.
> >
> > You totally missed the point, Dave.
> > The scenario is that a bunch of money is collected,
> > but the TLDs don't get into the root servers.
> > If there's 50 correct opplications out of 200 or 50 out of 50,
> > is totally irrelevant.
> 
> Well, Vince can't seem to avoid wording things in as offensive a
> manner as he can manage, and it is sometimes hard to keep all the
> arguments straight when you are being nibbled at by a thousand ducks.
> In any case, rather than assuming, as Vince does, fraud on the part of
> the POC, let's assume some other scenario -- say, a lawsuit against
> the IANA and the root server operators permanently prevents the
> addition of the TLDs run by CORE.  What happens to the money collected
> during the application process? Obviously, some of it will be tied up
> in vetting the applications, and that will be gone.
> 
> My understanding is that the money left over from the application
> process goes to CORE.  Every successful registrar applicant will be a
> member of CORE.  If it turns out that CORE is prevented by some legal
> issue from putting the names in the roots, then CORE will have the
> power to disburse any surplus funds how it sees fit.  It
> could vote to disburse the money back to its members, who were the
> ones who provided it to begin with.  It might vote to keep any funds in
> a trust, pending the outcome of the legal issues
> 
> In any case, the people who paid the money will have control of it,
> minus the part that was already spent.
> 
> Vince asks Dave to consider the case where the POC members are
> perpetuating a gigantic fraud, and that they already know in some
> magically prescient way that the names will not be placed in the
> roots.  Will the contracts prevent the POC members from being sued?
> Who knows?  Like Dave, I find it hard to consider it seriously.
> 
> [...]
> >
> > The fact that the wording is in the application makes it seem that
> > the authors didn't consider it totally implausible.
> 
> I'm not sure which wording you are referring to.  I believe the reason
> the fee is non-refundable is to allow stable funding for budgeting
> purposes for CORE.  It has that effect, at least.
> 
> >       /Paul
> 
> --
> Kent Crispin                            "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com                       the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html