Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 07:56:15PM +1200, 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?

I did not say his research isn't valid, and my understanding of the
argument really isn't the issue.  I said his paper expounds a legal
*theory*.  People appear to be confusing legal *theory* with legal
*fact*.  Of course, Froomkin also adduces many legal facts to support
his theory, but the question is, does his paper adequately consider
alternate theories.  James Boyles piece indicates that there are
respected legal scholars that disagree with Froomkin's premises. 

Indeed, there is a great deal of value in Froomkin's paper.  I read it, 
and I believe that I largely understood what I read.  It presents an 
interesting view of things.  It's just a pity that it wasn't written by 
someone with a bit less of a ax to grind.

> >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?

I deduce that from the emotional tone of some of his writings.  eg:

    "From the news: Mike Roberts shares his lessons learned from ICANN
    (health warning: don't be swallowing anything when you read the
    first one)."
             Posted by michael on Friday, April 13 @ 08:58:23 MDT
             http://www.icannwatch.org

    "Mike Roberts stepped down as 'temporary' CEO of ICANN this week,
    leaving the stage to M.  Stuart Lynn, who must have one of the 
    easiest acts in history to follow."

    "Read on for a few pearls from the wit and wisdom of Mike
    Roberts-the man who, more than anyone except perhaps Joe Sims, is
    responsible for the widespread belief that ICANN has contempt for  
    and freezes out anyone who doesn't either agree with it or credibly
    threaten to sue it."
             Posted by michael on Friday, March 16 @ 08:03:16 MST
             http://www.icannwatch.org

You probably agree with Froomkins writings, above, and probably find
them witty.  But I don't see how either of his ICANNWatch articles from
which the above quotes came could be reasonably construed as anything
but gratuitious personal attacks directed at Mike Roberts.  But perhaps
I'm missing something? Perhaps you could explain to me how these
articles are actually objective attempts to deal with serious issues?

It is also interesting that my comments concerning Froomkin's paper
generate such response -- it's really not *scripture*, you know.  It's
also amazing to me that people claim that my comments are some kind of
serious personal attack directed at Froomkin.  Saying that someone is
"not an objective observer" -- wow!...  perhaps that calls for pistols
at dawn?

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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