Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[david@farrar.com]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:12:18 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 07:56:15PM +1200, DPF wrote:

>> 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*.  

I didn't think anyone at all misunderstands the difference between an opinion 
article and a law or judgement.  

>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. 

Respected members of the Supreme Court disagree with each other regularly.  The 
fact there is disagreement is hardly surprising.

>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.

Do you ever wonder what leads to people having an ax to grind?  Puttign aside 
the obvious when there is commercial motivation.

>> 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.  

The first one was witty about the health warnings.  I personally don't see the 
point in attacking individuals in a general sense - more just attacking 
specific instances of inappropriate behaviour.  

I think there are valid issues about how much of ICANN's work should be done by 
the staff alone as contractural work and how much is policy which should be 
dealth with through SOs.  I have tried to get some debate going on this point 
but so far few contributions.

>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?

No those articles are not objective.  

>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?

I believe your article played the man more than the ball which is unhelpful.  
Just as I don't tend to refute what you or Mr Crocker says by pointing out he 
is a client of your ISP and you are linked to specific constituencies.  Instead 
I try to focus on the merits of the argument.

Also for the record in case anyone is wondering - I did not forward the posts 
onto Michael (that must have been other persons) and neither have I laid a 
complaint with the list monitors.  In fact in my time here I have never 
complained about anyone at all to the list monitor and I have only killfiled 
one person (well multiple personalities but of the one person) and even that 
was temporary.

DPF

--
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