Re: [ga] lawyers

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Dierker and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

One thing is for sure it will NOT be Joop ponying up the dinero $$ for
such
a legal action.  Karl has already put his money where his mouth is as
have I
and our organisation.  Seems some former GA members talk the talk,
but can't or won't walk the walk.

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    Joop, you learned scholar;
>
>   Let it be understood that bravery and politics and acumen are
> critical here. But let it also be known that no legal action here in
> the USA is taken these days unless there is gain to be had. Sometimes
> vengeance, sometimes passion but mostly $$$$ or politics. Usually the
> big cases have an agenda down the road with an eye toward legal
> wrangling which brings about posturing to a point of compromise. Many
> cases are conspiracies where the defendant actually begs to be sued
> for logistical legal accord leading to resolution and therefor viable
> concrete and stable investment enviroments.
>
>   Funny huh, but in fact the big civil matters here are more about
> settling things than winning. You see we (us crazy USAsian) will not
> plop down our dollar in investment in another unless matters are
> faretheewell settled and secure.
>
>   So we must find a (wo)man with vision. And not your god awfull term
> "cajones" but dinero.
>
>   The trouble is that it is far better to invest in Karls'
> inventiveness than legal cajones. If he does a limitted offering on
> anything i want to know! I will connect him with brother investors
> that are more right than left brain like my rich kin.
>   (of course one must understand that i and he respect each other, yet
> our differences are used to test our mettle personally, we accept this
> intellectually but antagonists will harm us with it, yet in truth we
> battle in sophistry openly, a damn dangerous game, i do not invite
> upon the weak)
>
>   But be very aware this theosis is debated in open quarter. Therefore
> as always it is soon to pass.
>
>   e
>
> Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   At 11:51 p.m. 9/01/2006, you wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> >>>I agree, ICANN is ripe for being at the wrong end of legal actions
> >>>claiming that ICANN has unfairly and improperly acted as a
> combination
> >>>for the purpose of restraining trade, restricting the entry of
> vendors
> >>>into the marketplace, establishing minimum prices, and prohibiting
> new
> >>>product innovations.
> >
> >>What will make these legal actions hard is the reality is that
> behind
> >>ICANN's trade restrictive policies stands (hands-off, most of the
> time )
> >>the government of a superpower at war.
> >
> >What you are missing is this: There is a threshold question whether
> ICANN
> >is acting as an arm of the US government or not - it's a binary
> question.
> >
> >If the answer is "Yes, ICANN is really the US Dept of Commerce in
> >disguise" then the question then becomes one whether the US has the
> >authority and whether they have exercised it properly. (And there are
>
> >some pretty solid rules about this, despite the claims of our Sun
> King
> >Nouvelle.)
>
> The question needs to be settled and then I would agree that perhaps
> it is
> time to test the solidity of those rules. That needs cojones. (anyone
> here
> on this list who wants to be lead plaintiff ?)
>
> I also agree that the question is now binary, even though it may not
> always
> have been so.
> Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that the Clinton administration,
> possibly
> because it did not foresee the speedy growth in
> importance-for-everything
> of the Internet, was genuinely interested in devolving things like the
>
> IANA function out of its own hands and into the hands of an
> industry-led
> cabal in which it would retain sufficient influence.
> It was both in the Administration's and ICANN's interest to leave the
> question of where the buck ultimately stops as unanswered as possible.
>
> Since then we have seen the global internet takeoff combined with the
> emergence and the practicing of a different political philosophy in
> its
> country of origin.
>
> >If the answer is "No, ICANN is really and truely private then the
> fact
> >that the US dept of Commerce may be watching and cringing has no
> effect on
> >the legal case.
> >
> >This was among the questions asked and points raised by Michael
> Froomkin
> >in his paper "Wrong Turn In Cyberspace". And the GAO reviews of DoC
> and
> >ICANN do not indicate that the DoC has much of a leg to stand on in
> terms
> >of proper authority.
>
> Expect the current Administration to be a very interested party when
> this
> threshold question would come to get settled by the courts.
>
> It is bound to do more than watching and cringing.
>
>
>
> -joop-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"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.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827