Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:20:24 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>1) While extremely erudite, the paper is fundamentally just a legal
>*theory*, justified by obscure and abstruse legal research.  

Why does the fact you find his research hard to understand (dictionary
definition of abstruse) mean it is any less valid?

>4) All this would perhaps not matter if Froomkin were an objective 
>observer, but he is not.

Being objective is to be "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal
prejudices".  I am not aware Michael has any commercial interests
which would lead to be not objective or that he has any personal
prejudices.

Apart from the fact you disagree with what he says in what other way
is Michael not objective?

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html