Re: [ga] ICANN vs. Reality

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Just to put this case in its true context, Jeff Davies has concerns that
reach far beyond specific domain names, and is challenging ICANN's
orthodoxies, just as many other people are. Jeff has shown me a lively and
credible commitment to the At Large movement and the case for ordinary
people to have FAR more say and influence in the way the DNS is administered
and developed.

Of course, Icann and Afilias may well resort to standard methods of spin and
marginalisation... but I have to say, they will undoubtedly be intimidated
by Jeff's very lucid and lengthy legal documentation... if they have any
sense!

This case (and others possibly linked to it, or springing from it) is very
much worth watching, because Icann and Afilias are on very awkward ground
here, particularly on the specifics of the case. The actual legal detail may
come down in favour of Jeff Davies, and if it does, it will create a number
of interesting precedents for subsequent action.

It is a very interesting case indeed, and in no ways trivial or facile. Jeff
Davies is a serious challenger and he is challenging on what I think may
well be strong grounds.

I look forward to hearing what comes next!

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Allan Liska <allan@allan.org>
Cc: gen full <ga-full@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN vs. Reality


> Alan and all assembly members,
>
> Allan Liska wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: MD5
> >
> > Hello Jeff,
> >
> > Thursday, December 5, 2002, 1:16:41 AM, you wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I don't think those two statements are conflicting at all
> >
> > JW>   Well I am sure that John, like myself and our legal staff are not
> > JW> overly surprised and such a statement from a ill informed layman...
> >
> > Matlock does not count as a legal staff, he is a fictional television
> > character.
>
>   Never heard of "Matlock" so I am afraid you have me at a disadvantage
> here...  I also don't watch very much television...  So if this "Matlock"
> is such a character, he is obviously a popular character of yours.  So
> perhaps  you have this "Matlock" character confused with Louis Touton???
> If so, is that "Matlock" character a character actor in some sort
> of legal comedy?
>
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> No matter how a new domain is introduced you are going to have people
> > >> who don't get the name they want, there is no way to prevent that
from
> > >> happening, and inevitably someone is going to sue -- I hardly think
> > >> you can blame people's propensity to file lawsuits on ICANN.
> >
> > JW>   I and it seems that a growing number of others obviously disagree
with
> > JW> this statement as stated.  It ia also clear that a number of legal
jurisdictions
> > JW> both internal to the US and especially outside the US, are also not
> > JW> in agreement with what you state here as well.  ICANN can easily
> > JW> avoid any legal action and the BoD and Staff know what they need to
> > JW> do to so.  Louis's comment above, is not a good method obviously...
> >
> > That is such a ridiculous statement that it could only come from you.
> > As long as there are two or more parties that desire a domain name
> > there will be winners and losers, inevitably some of the losers will
> > sue.
>
>   Just because I don't get a domain name that I want or wanted, in no way
> means that I am a loser in that desire or endeavor..  There are other
> similar alternatives.  In any event a Domain Name is not what this
> thread is about anyway.  It IS about in part TLD Top Level Domains,
> Allan...  Please try to remember the difference...
>
> > There is no way of rolling out new TLDs that will not result in
> > a lawsuit.
>
>   Yet another ridiculous statement from you here...  Unfortunate..  :(
>
>   There are any number of ways to "Avoid" most legal actions when
> a new TLD is introduced....  Those ways have been discussed
> a some length some time ago on this very forum.  Perhaps a review
> of the DNSO GA archives would be a good and helpful exercise
> for you, specifically on this subject area...????
>
> >
> >
> > allan
> > - --
> > Allan Liska
> > allan@allan.org
> > http://www.allan.org
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: 2.6
> >
> > iQCVAwUAPe7mDSkg6TAvIBeFAQEO2AQAlDp52Gl94znXkE4cDPTXhSKCgSYhs+1K
> > vy4iEC0YoqRc2U2HNr3ipnbK2LBQ8P2zjIjaor/7xnrI4KqI35Mx2iFsbD2UJk24
> > uWeqRFc8JgrjPsnZ7p7BB3XPZgha1OP0e4eoCei6EAnf/Hj0au7ABQHCyScKaR75
> > le/RF5drytM=
> > =WWpG
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>

--
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