Re: [ga] Open and Transparent

[eric@hi-tek.com]

I have clipped much;
Theory is quite good but in contract interpretation we use common
meaning:

Open     Date: before 12th century
         1 : having no enclosing or confining barrier : accessible on
all or nearly                     all sides <cattle grazing on an open
range>


Transparent     Date: 15th century
            1 a (1) : having the property of transmitting light without
appreciable
                     scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen
clearly

Now look to the articles and to the White and Green papers.  And then
note the
referral to bottoms up.  Joe Sims is engaging in sophistry, a standard
lawyer move when you do not have the facts.  His personal definitions of
words make no difference when ICANN has signed a contract.

If they had just used open, he may have an argument.  If they had just
used Transparent he may have had a point.  But when they used both
combined with bottoms up it sealed the deal.  But of course that
representation was how they got the contract, now to change is fraud. 
Dannys' arguments may seem a little too rigid, but not if it was based
upon that social contract that ICANN exists today, they did it not Danny
- he is merely holding them to a promise.

Karls' lawsuit and Dannys' point, are part and parcel of the same
promise.  Even Brett argues to breach a promise.  These lines of
argument are morally and legally defective.

Sitting by and allowing this type of contract poste facto revisionism is
simply enabling ICANN to fail.  Shame on Don Evans and the DOC for
remaining quiet.

Sincerely,
Eric


"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> Although not a frequent poster to the GA, I do try to monitor the traffic in
> my free time. I would like to offer my personal insight on the current
> discussion between Bret and Joe with regard to the scope and interpretation
> of open and transparent. During my over three years of involvement in the
> ICANN process the most defining moment I experienced occurred during Paul
> Twomey's GAC presentation at the Berlin meeting, specifically his response
> spanning 1 hour and 16 minutes to 1 hour and 22 minutes. See
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/ His comments provide a
> rather interesting backdrop to Bret and Joe's discussion.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html