[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

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).