Ken and all, In a very few instances is what Ken is stating here accurate. The "Registration COntract" is both ambiguous and not legally enforceable, not to mention it is based on the "Accreditation POlicy" edicted by ICANN which did not enjoy a measurable consensus at Singapore. Therefore, in a court of law, and the existing documentation and historical record would be prima Fascia evidence should some of the points that Ed makes here come to a legal challenge. Ken Stubbs wrote: > there is available to all registrars in the structuring process of the > registration contract each one uses, the opportunities to clarify many of > the issues mr gerck bings out here > > ken stubbs > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 12:21 PM > Subject: Re: UDRP and anti-trust? > > > "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote: > > > > > Seems like it to me. But I'm not a anti-trust specialist. ICANN > counsel > > > ..... > > > On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Phil Howard wrote: > > > > IANAL, so I am asking for info on this. > > > > > > > > What is the possibility that the UDRP violates anti-trust laws with > regard to > > > > the fact that ICANN may require every registrar to enforce it, thus > giving no > > > > free competitive choice to registrants? Could such a case be > arguable? > > > > > > > > US and State legislatures often disfavor provisions imposed on consumers > in > > standard form contracts if they believe that they will result in > unfairness -- > > including unfair competition rules which reduce consumer's choice to no > > choice (the infamous "one option" choice) . In California, for example, an > > agreement to conduct a transaction electronically may not be contained in > > a standard form contract that is not an electronic record, and an > agreement > > in such a standard form contract may not be conditioned upon an agreement > > to conduct transactions electronically. In most countries, consumer > > laws also allow a period of at least seven days for a consumer to > > repudiate any transaction for which the consumer was not physically > > present (eg, phone orders, Internet orders). > > > > So, if the subscriber did not explictly request that the domain dispute > resolution > > *which is not at all required by law and which actually forfeit > subscriber's > > right to due process* be turned on, then I believe that consumer law will > > protect consumers from this about face overreaching by a business sector > > in a standard form contract that would have no alternative and no clear > > voluntary adhesion, all in detriment to the subscriber that was not > physically > > present to even discuss the contract. > > > > Also any given statement in the UDRP can be repudiated for any of a whole > > host of reasons, ranging from denial of the facts of the case, to duress > or > > compulsion, to lack of knowing intent, to legal or mental incapacity or > > lack of agency -- the infamous "infants, idiots, and married women" > clause. > > Will a married woman require her husband's signature in order to forfeit > rights? > > Probably, in most countries. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ed Gerck > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
