[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Relative article in regards to Terms and Conditions of Applicant Guidebook

[Jim Prendergast]

I would hesitate to draw any conclusions from this case as it's not over.  Once it's over that's a different scenario.

Donuts also has an appeal in their .web case where this issue may also be re-litigated.

Best to wait and see on both fronts before drawing any conclusions.

I do have a question on the covenant to not sue. Was that called for in the GNSO recommendations or by the community?  Or was that something ICANN legal put in on their own accord?

On Feb 15, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Michael Flemming <flemming at brightsconsulting.com<mailto:flemming at brightsconsulting.com>> wrote:

Dear All,

Prior to our call this Thursday to discuss the T&Cs (Module 6) of AGB, there was a suggestion to share this article in regards to the most recent episode of the .africa court case. The previous ruling that stated the "covenant not to sue" was unenforceable, has now been overturned in the latest ruling on the case. As such, by this ruling, the covenant is now enforceable.

http://domainincite.com/21529-africa-to-finally-go-live-after-judge-denies-injunction

My own understanding and interpretation of this is as it resonates in the article, the covenant not to sue ICANN is enforceable. However, I would very much like to hear back from our participants with a more legal background on this.

I don't think this is case closed for us on the T&Cs, but perhaps will provide for better discussion material this Thursday.

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Michael Flemming
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170215/2d833ef8/attachment.html>