NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Joly MacFie <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Joly MacFie <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:41:36 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
The fact that such well informed people as Avri and Milton do not on
agree on the circumstances here does indicate that the board could be
honest in its appraisal of its own uncertainty.

Even Stuart Lawley (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvqhXXln1vY )
earlier in the week uses the word 'if' in anticipation of the board's
decision.

So the board opted to punt, until the various options were clear. How
long can that take? If Milton is right, and they're SOL legally -
possibly not that long.


j




>> - The ICM process makes sense to me.  without a process last time, it is
>> foolish to decide without one this time.
>
> This is just a factual mistake. There was a very well defined process in 2004-5. Here it is in black and white:
> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-application-parta-15dec03.htm
> ICM Registry conformed to it, and the Board conformed to it up until the US government intervened. If an agency makes a decision that breaks applicable law or its own rules and process, then you reverse the decision, you don't create a new process and treat the victim as if they are a completely new applicant. That isn't fair. As free expression concerns are at stake in this case, it's really bad that this is happening.
>
>> and if they are being serious
>> about the process, the court may stall the proceedings - even if ICM
>> files -
>
> Avri, you need to preface remarks like that with "I am not a lawyer, but...." You seem not to understand the legal issues here. If there will be litigation it will be based on the fact that ICANN lost its case in the IRP and is now trying to avoid providing a remedy. And it is obvious that if ICANN awards the TLD there would be no court proceeding. So this argument just doesn't hold a drop of water.
>
>> because what they did wrong was move without a well defined
>> process.,
>
> Again, false premises lead to false conclusions. ICANN had a well-defined process, and they discarded it because of political pressure.
>

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2