Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:28:44 -0700, you wrote:

>At 12:56 AM 4/17/2001, DPF wrote:
>>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?
>
>Why do you focus on one term and ignore the rather long list of other 
>issues about the paper?

Well mainly because he used a word (abstruse) that I had never heard
of before so I looked it up.  I was surprised to find the definition
which I found so commented on it.  

The rest of Kent's post was fairly non controversial, in fact it was
almost undebatable.  My summary is that what Michael wrote is only
Michael's opinion and other lawyers disagree with him.

It would have been more useful to have pointed out the flaws in
Michael's reasoning IMO that merely saying not all lawyers agree (a
truism if I have heard one).

>By the way, when something is difficult to understand, it is less likely 
>that it can be validated.

Difficult to understand though is in the eye of the beholder.  

>> >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.
>
>Prof. Froomkin's biases are clear and consistent.  He seeks to criticize 
>ICANN.  He seeks to do it vigorously and at every turn.  His motives might 
>be less clear, though the instant he starts getting public exposure for his 
>efforts, then it is clear that he is serving to promote his career.

Well if this is not a personal attack I do not know what is.  You
claim that because he is a constant and publicised critic his
motivation is venal and self serving - namely promoting his career,
rather than merely possessing honest opinions that ICANN should be
operating better.

Do you truly believe that every single critic of ICANN's is motivated
by venal self interest?  Do you believe I am?  Do you believe that
only those who defend ICANN are motivated by noble purposes?

I find the attack on Michael's motives curious especially as in NZ
anyway Professors have no need to promote their career as they have
tenure for life.  In fact a requirement of universities in NZ is to be
a conscience and critic of society.

>>Apart from the fact you disagree with what he says in what other way
>>is Michael not objective?
>
>Perhaps you should consider re-reading Kent's note again and more 
>carefully.  You appear to have missed the focus of concerns that he raises.

I did not miss any.  I chose to address the points he made where I
found myself not in agreement.  

>I'll make your task simpler:
>
>1.  Prof. Froomkin's paper is interesting from an academic standpoint, but 
>has received no demonstration of legal force.  The best that can be said 
>about it is that graduate law student deemed it worthy of publication.

One wonders if you try to be insulting.  Of course an opinion paper
has no legal force.  No legal opinion ever has legal force unless it
is made by a sub species of lawyer called a Judge.  Why do you not
address the flaws in the reasoning than red herrings such as it is
only an opinion.

>2.  A substantial number of practising attorneys have come to very 
>different conclusions that Prof. Froomkin and there is nothing about Prof. 
>Froomkin's history to suggest that he is smarter or more experienced than 
>they are.

Again this is a non argument.  The fact lawyers disagree is hardly a
novel event.  More useful would be a summary of on which points they
disagree and why.  

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