Re: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John,
I have never filed an injunction on behalf of myself or anyone else.  
But arent you omitting a few very key steps in the proceses before you 
even get to the test?

Going in front of a judge and waving the IAB Statement, for sure someone 
will want to know why it applies.
To get to there from point A, I would think that  you have to basically 
prove with great precision how the IAB gets to be in a position of 
authority such that ICANN should listen to it and how its policy should 
be believed with out question.  Can you point me to a shortcut?  An 
injunction that takes x years to be argued (not that it would ever get 
to that point in any court), well either it was required or it wasnt but 
we would find out long before, right?


John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > ummmmmmmmm. No.
> > that language permits the board to enact a policy. They can then turn
> > around and serve notice on Verisign to act. And Verisign can object and
> > force the matter to go to court whenre ICANN would have to go and
> > demonstrate that it is:
> >
> > "necessary to maintain the operational stability of Registry Services, the
> >    
> DNS or the Internet, and that the proposed specification or policy is as
> narrowly tailored
>  
>
> > as feasible to achieve those objectives."
> >    
>
> For preliminary injunction purposes, the IAB statement is sufficient basis
> for ICANN to prevail.  In the balance of harms test for the preliminary
> injunction, ICANN has a clear advantage.  The Security and Stability
> Committee said it disrupted stability.  There are two Verisign employees on
> that committee.
>
>
>
>  

--
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@xxxxxxxxxxxx