Re: [wg-review] Time's up for ICANN

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Then a group or groups can be formed on those issues as well. But to make a
recommendation for all issues we must also consider the possibility of that
NOT happening. Otherwise by choosing to go one way or the other we ignore
the reason the group was formed and we may sidetrack to one issue ignoring
the others.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Len Lindon" <info@humanrights.com.au>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 1:43 AM
Subject: [wg-review] Time's up for ICANN


> > Why not this group decide on the issues
> > that need to be resolved, then make the recommendation for groups on
each
> > topic, instead of asking for an extension of time here.
>
> wrote NameCritic not long ago.
>
> One issue that needs to be resolved is the likelihood that ICANN will
cease
> to exist or will be substantially broken up by March 2001.
>
> There should be an immediate recommendation to form a Working Group to
> urgently discuss and research options in the light of the ICANN Breakup
> Case.
>
> Not to mention the numerous Reconsideration Requests to ICANN from Marina
> del Rey (November) AGM. It only takes one of them to tire of this farce
and
> go to a real court and the game could be up. And do you not think all the
> Big Players are taking legal advice and hedging their bets on this.
>
> There are now conflicting rulings in the USA on whether or not ICANN is
> immune from both antitrust and administrative domestic law. It is unlikely
> that the French courts would disagree on the correct characterisation.
Even
> an Australian court might get it right. Maybe in February. Tick tick tick.
>
>