Re: [ga] VeriSign Loses == not really?

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Probably a more practical take is Mr. Faussetts;
http://blog.lextext.com/blog/icann//index.html
Remember now he followed this matter fairly closely as I recall, even attending a hearing or two.
I believe the more important matter is that ICANN was apparently saved by soliciting input. Very easy for folks to whine that their voice is not heard. Very clear that in fact it is heard and used.
Now if that same matter came to pass today without viable input from a GA would the defense still hold? Or had Verisign gotten public input here to show that the bottom up input was a sham, could they have passed muster?
 
I suggest that this judges ruling and the fact that dotORG has changed its titular head to a man focused on privacy indicates a priority on true bottom up input into matters that truly concern consumer users. 
 
The council would do many a great favor by placing an emphasis on elevating this list to a priority.
So the bottom line is that no one loses here and that there is a more clear foundation as to what the priorities should be. Real bottom up accountability is the greatest defense any charge of liability or responsibility.
 
Eric

Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,


Somewhat contrary to ICANN's own "press release style" announcment,
Internet.com's more complete take tell a little bit different story!
See:
http://asia.internet.com/news/article.php/3400781
http://news.com.com/VeriSign's+antitrust+suit+against+ICANN+dismissed/2100-1030_3-5326136.html

Interesting excerpts:

"Matz had already tossed VeriSign's original antitrust claim back in
May, telling the manager of the .com and .net registries to amend the
document. If the weren't able to prove antitrust claims in court, he
added, it didn't make sense to rule on the six breach of contract
counts in the suit. "

This would at least concede that ICANN is up to some shanagans
regareding breach of contract issues...

And...

"VeriSign lawyers vow the judge's ruling won't stop them from filing the

same lawsuit in the California state courts, now that federal relief
isn't possible."

Well, well, well, I for one am not surprised.... It's not over yet!


Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!