ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Re: IRT Final Report is an abomination and wholly unbalanced

  • To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, irt-final-report@xxxxxxxxx, DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep <aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, GAC Rep <ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, icann board <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>, ICANN Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Re: IRT Final Report is an abomination and wholly unbalanced
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 12:02:38 -0700

Eric and all,

  Well quite frankly I didn't have the same take as Eric did in response

to Georges remarks which I felt were pretty much spot on although
a bid sarcastic towards the end.  But sarcasm is a higher form of
communication so therefore I cannot take too much fault there either.
Though one might argue that sarcasm in this instance wasn't fully
justified depending on your point of view...

  Very good analysis here George, IMO.

Hugh Dierker wrote:

> George, Your a genius.  Extremely bright and intellectual in your
  analysis. You view right and wrong, black and white with an engineer's
  precision. Would you please take just a moment and look up a few
  words: Empathy, Social, Persuasion and Passion.  Take just a few
  moments longer and get away from the definitions and contemplate how
  we talk of and use such words. (did you know that there are about 20
  subcultures that think, and speak in such a way that when you hold a
  rock out in your hand and release it -- the earth comes up to meet
  it?)* We do not generally use the language of "unconscionable" for
  reports. That term is basically reserved for contracts and acts.  Yes
  words and reports can elevate themselves to "acts" or actions.  But it
  is not usually helpful to discuss them as such. Simple reason:Prior
  Restraint. We do not want to restrict or limit discussions and reports
  and debate by punishing one for opinions -- or we would end up not
  hearing them. And that would be socially unconscionable. You in
  general have been in favor or limiting participation and restricting
  those with access to those whom you deem appropriate yet you complain
  about lack of inclusiveness. Quite odd. I would suggest in this case
  that if you are truly as upset as you write that you "convince" others
  to see things your way. You would probably have to slow down and
  explain to some of us less enlightened what you mean.  *I use this to
  show that you cannot just assume everyone is on the same page as you.

  --- On Sat, 5/30/09, George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

       From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
       Subject: [ga] Re: IRT Final Report is an abomination and
       wholly unbalanced
       To: irt-final-report@xxxxxxxxx
       Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
       Date: Saturday, May 30, 2009, 1:01 AM

       Just a quick followup, I believe that this report, if
       implemented as policy rises, to the level of
       unconscionability in legal terms:


       What will happen, IRT team, when legitimate registrants
       pre-emptively sue ICANN, VeriSign/PIR (no one cares about
       new gTLDs, but they do care about .com/net/org), and the URS
       providers on the day after any URS policy goes into effect,
       as that would be the only mechanism available to
       "white-list" valuable domains and websites that have been
       registered and used in good faith by legitimate companies to
       prevent them from being disrupted and subject to the
       egregious lack of due process in the URS? Some folks like to
       take 2 week holidays, especially when they've owned a domain
       for 10 years! Because the IP Tort Bar


       was too greedy, asking for too much, they might actually end
       up getting nothing at all (or even facing damages) when
       everything gets through the courts.. Take a look at the .biz
       lottery, if you need a lesson in history. Make sure all your
       ducks are in a row.

       From the Wikipedia article,

       "Usually for a court to find a contract unconscionable the
       party claiming unconscionability will have to prove both
       that there was a problem with the substance of the contract
       and the process through which that contract was formed. The
       substantive problem will usually be the consideration, but
       could also be the terms, interest payments, OR OTHER
       OBLIGATIONS THE COURT FINDS UNFAIR." (emphasis added)

       You can take this letter as notice that ICANN should
       preserve all records that exist of the IRT's secret
       deliberations (including all emails, MP3 recordings,
       transcripts, etc.), and IRT members may expect to be called
       as witnesses in order to demonstrate the "process" through
       which that contract was formed (and in particular the
       history). At least the IRT members can get more free travel,
       being deposed and testifying in court. IRT members are used
       to being complainants and attacking others, and it would be
       interesting to see if their defence is as good as their


       George Kirikos
       Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.


Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"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
My Phone: 214-244-4827

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy