<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions
As I have said on many occasions, I speak for myself unless I state clearly
that I am speaking for ICANN, which you will know if you pay attention is
very rare. Any insults are free. How about you; do you speak for yourself
or are you representing particular clients when you publish your regular
contribution of misrepresentations, and fantasy?
Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone: 1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax: 1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone: 1.703.629.3963
"Michael
Froomkin - To: Joe Sims <jsims@JonesDay.com>
U.Miami School cc: ga@dnso.org
of Law" Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions
<froomkin@law.mi
ami.edu>
05/24/02 03:42
PM
I direct your attention to my senate testimony, which was moderately
specific, and UDRP work, on my website, which is very specific.
I think you owe it to your clients and your public to specify when you
speek for yourself and when you speak for your clients.
Specifically, do you bill for these insulting emails, i.e. do so as
ICANN's lawyer, or is this a private effort?
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> It is nice to see someone actually make some specific suggestions.
Bret's
> constructively critical approach to ICANN is always a happy contrast to
the
> Byfield's and Froomkin's of the world, who have (at least in my memory)
> never met an ICANN action or decision they liked. And anyone who had any
> naive notion that the tabloid they edit was even remotely intended to be
> objective can see from the exchange between Thomas and Ted that the
editors
> have their own unique notion of journalism. The comparison to Bret's
> ICANNBlog, for example, is pretty stark. I do note that Bret's
suggested
> revisions to the mission statement and bylaws are fairly limited, and if
> you put aside those dealing with at large elections, where we simply have
> an honest difference of opinion, very limited. The ccSO issue is
> complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of the cc
> relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to
> elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy decisions they
> refused to recognize as having any effect on them. With respect to the
> other suggested changes, they are all within the realm of reasonable
> argument, and as such I am sure will be discussed at the Board retreat.
> Thanks, Bret, for making the effort, and be prepared for the inevitable
> conspiracy theories to follow,
>
>
> Joe Sims
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's hot here.<--
==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|