Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair

[Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I said nothing of the sort that you suggest.  In our fallen state, no
person has omniscience, and it is prudent to recall this.  Thus, all
humans can err.  As it happens, I was then and reasonably certain that I
had and have the facts.  But anyone can err.  Nothing in this thread,
however, has revealed anything not previously known.

In this particular case, it appears that your legal advisor erred, and
you went along with it.  People tend to rely on their lawyers, and in my
opinion in most cases less blame attaches to those acting on the advice
of counsel than those making it up themselves.  That doesn't change the
character of the act, however.  

So be it.

Javier SOLA wrote:
> 
> Michael,
> 
> At 15:56 8/08/99 +0200, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> >I identified what I consider to be a rather serious error of fact -- the
> >claim by Mr. Sola that the pNC has complied in every respect with the
> >by-laws.

I still consider the above to  be a true statement.  Furthermore, others
on this thread have suggested other issues of a similar sort.

> >
> >Mindful of the fact that despite hours of research on my part I might
> >not be in full possession of the facts, that I might be ill-informed, I
> >call for the person who made the statement to substantiate it in light
> >of an alleged counter-example that I find credible.
> 
> You, a lawyer, admit that you are accusing  people of a violation of which
> you know nothing and of which you have no proof whatsoever. You just
> imagine that there must be something you can accuse us of.

The proof is very simple:  The text of the rules and the events of the
day.  Must every attempt at politeness be twisted out of shape?  Would
this discussion had proceeded better if I had written something along
the lines of, "A great lie has been told."?  Of course not.

I offered you a chance to rebut what I see as an overwhelming case
against the regularity of the actions of the pNC.  I think this is an
important issue because if the pNC (and ICANN) cannot act in conformity
with written undertakings, then those of us on the outside might as well
give up.  You were not able to rebut the accusation of irregularity, so
you proceeded to attack me instead.  It reminds me of the story about
the advice given to litigators:  "When the facts are on yours side,
pound the facts.  If the facts are against you, pound the law.  And if
the facts and the law are against you, pound the table."

> 
> In the movies at least they find a body... a smoking gun... something that
> makes you think of a crime...

This is not a movie.  No one has died, and I hope no one will (although
it is not inconceivable that a result of the requirement of open whois
is that someone with an unpopular web site will be found and killed;
this worries me).  Get a grip.  What he have here so far is a simple
story of various economic interests trying to make rules that favor them
and disfavor consumers, while others seek to preserve a monopoly. 
Meanwhile, various governments seek to encourage the construction of
systems that favor law enforcement and taxation authorities, at the
expense of privacy and (in some cases) political freedom.  Various
supra-national organizations seek to insert themselves into the process
for various high and low minded reasons (in some cases, the source for
power and revenue).   The usual complicated mess.  It happens that I
think the positions you espouse while likely to help break the monopoly
do far too much to hurt consumers, and risk helping design in lack of
privacy and potential social control into the technical
infrastructure.   These are the root issues that make wrangling over
these issues worth our time.

> 
> Don't you think that this is highly unethical and biased (to say the least)?

Yes, I do think that describes the activities of certain individuals in
this process.  I leave it to the participants in the process to reach a
judgment as to whom this best applies.  

> 
> Javier
> 
> P.D. You might consider this comment as "mean", but you should recognise
> that you are the one making personal attacks based on thin air...

Readers should draw their own conclusions.

-- 
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 there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--