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>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Re: IRT Final Report is an abomination and wholly unbalanced
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 15:02:46 -0700

Eric and all,

  Well Eric, I don't know if you criticizing me and/or my remarks
or exalting me and George, or neither.  Which ever as we do not
control ICANN's communication practice or policy, nor have any
significant impact on same as well as ICANN has for whatever reason
always and continually sought to thwart constructive criticism due
to being publicly embarrassed, I can only wonder how attempting
to get folks involved can ever be realistically accomplished.  As such
is and has been an ongoing part of the discussion and debate within
and about ICANN sense it's inception and a violation of the MOU,
one can only reasonably conclude that the cabel/guild that is ICANN
shall remain relatively closed and particularly non-responsive

  But as always I appreciate you efforts, even though you have not been
as successful as you might like and I am banned along with Dr. Joe for
no good or ethical reason from participating openly and transparently
on the GA.  The proof is in the putting as it were, eh?

  Let me again remind you and all of the recipients, I will never even
under the pain of death give up what so ever my freedom of speech
and expression no matter whom it may offend accordingly.  Too many
have fought and died for me an you to have that RIGHT.  It is not a
privilege!  Although ICANN officials would seemingly believe such
is.  To the extent that such is so amongst any ICANN official, they
can kiss my A$$!

Hugh Dierker wrote:

> Well Jeff, Of course it was spot on. Of course it was a great
  analysis. Of course he has much to complain about. And of course he
  says it in such a way as to aggravate, piss off people and make
  enemies and keep it personal. My point was in trying to get great
  contributing minds such as his and yours to contribute in such a way
  as to make a positive practical impact. Believe it or not the research
  and analysis required to point out flaws and errors is actually harder
  than that required to find solutions and suggest avenues of practical
  opposition. My contribution is not practical but intended to get
  folks, not to think about it, not to do something about it, but to
  engage others about it so as to keep the issue on the table.For this I
  always appreciate your time and energy.

  --- On Sat, 5/30/09, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

       From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
       Subject: 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"
       Cc: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>,
       ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "joe Babtista" <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
       "Paul Levins" <paul.levins@xxxxxxxxx>, "Peter Dengate
       Thrush" <barrister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ICANN Dan Halloran"
       <halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, "icann legal" <jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>
       Date: Saturday, May 30, 2009, 12:02 PM

       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
       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
       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
         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
         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>

              From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
              Subject: [ga] Re: IRT Final Report is an abomination
              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
              pre-emptively sue ICANN, VeriSign/PIR (no one cares
              new gTLDs, but they do care about .com/net/org), and
       the URS
              providers on the day after any URS policy goes into
              as that would be the only mechanism available to
              "white-list" valuable domains and websites that have
              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
              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)
              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
              that there was a problem with the substance of the
              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
              as witnesses in order to demonstrate the "process"
              which that contract was formed (and in particular the

              history). At least the IRT members can get more free
              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


              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