Re: [ga] court supervision, follow on article

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Veni Markovski wrote:
> At 05:52 PM 11.10.2006 '?.'  -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > Oh, you mean the thing with the entire content relevant to what you 
> > are asserting (ICANN immunity) is contained in one paragraph of two 
> > sentences that simply states a conclusion without supporting
>
> I am not saying that ICANN has immunity - you asume I said it. I just 
> said (and Michael Froomking, who is a US lawyer, right?) confirmed that 
> it doesn't seem a case for ICANN. You, and others, have different 
> opinions. Well, we'll just wait and see who is right. I don't asume I am 
> right, but I see you asume you are right.

You seem to have missed my point entirely.

I, also, believe, that in the spamhaus case that ICANN is reasonably 
safe, particularly since PIR is a better target for the order.  But as I 
and others have pointed out, ICANN is not as safe as it's press release 
legal opinion pretends it to be.

But the bigger problem, which is the subject I've been addressing, is 
twofold:

1) ICANN has an institutional hubris that makes it believe that it is 
somehow exempt from normal legal responsibilities

2) The members of the board abandon their responsibilities and accept 
whatever nonsense that ICANN's staff feeds them.  In this particular 
instance that nonsense being an empty assertion that ICANN has no power 
over domain name registrations.

Someday a better formed case will come along and ICANN's do-nothing, 
question-nothing directors are going to let staff lead 'em into a deep, 
expensive swamp.

		--karl--