[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Sat Nov 7 22:13:04 CET 2015
In message <B6D5AF09-57C5-4CB0-8DAB-85BD57139BBE at steffann.nl>, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote: >The contract between the end user and the LIR must comply with >https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-637. At the minimum, all >contracts must include: > >- Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource >holder to keep registration records up-to-date >- Notice that the resource holder is obliged to provide up-to-date >registration data to the LIR and that some or all of this registration >data will be published in the RIPE WHOIS Database >... >- A clear statement that the use of resources is subject to RIPE >policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended from >time to time > >But the RIPE NCC isn't an official party in that contract. The contract >is between end user and LIR. As a matter of law, you are, I believe, wrong. Based on all of the above, RIPE is quite clearly both (a) named explicitly in all of these LIR/end-user contracts and also (b) a third-party beneficiary of all of these contracts. I certainly give everyone involved with drafting the language you've quoted above (and also everyone who is out there who has drafted any LIR/ end-user contract) high marks for these elaborate efforts to try to dance around the uncomfortable fact that RIPE actually _is_ a party to all these contracts. But at the end of the day, all of the lingusitic contortions cannot change the facts of the matter. RIPE _is_ a party to all of these contracts, and thus, all end-users holding RIPE number resources _do_ already have a contractual relationship with RIPE at the present time. To claim that they do not seems to me to be merely a matter of diverting one's eyes from the unpleasant truth of the matter. Regards, rfg P.S. By a very strange coincidence, I was recently investigating one particular spammed-for web site which, on its Terms and Conditions page, made what seemed at the time to be a rather obscure refrence to an equally obscure UK law. I looked up the relevant law and found that it was really rather interesting. I do believe that it most probably has direct bearing on the present discussion and thus, that it might possibly inform further debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_%28Rights_of_Third_Parties%29_Act_1999 See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beswick_v_Beswick P.P.S. If nothing else, this discussion has given me a new appreciation for Alexander Hamilton (and the early Federalists generally).
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]