Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

Two points:

1) there's an enormous difference between endorsing the entire report
"in principle but not in detail" and taking no view of some very
controversial parts of it.  For those who object to the entire proposal
regarding famous marks on he principle of the thing, even an endorsement
"in principle" would be pretty upsetting.  It not being there matters.

2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to
mean, but for the record I claim a constituency of one -- myself -- and am
more than content for my statements to stand or fall on the power or
idiocy of my ideas.  This is why I write them out in some detail. (c.f.
http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf ).

There are some very legitimate questions to be asked about who loses/wins
from delay.  Before we even address those, though, lawyers like me will
ask you if you think you are doing a short term thing or trying to build
for the long term.  If you are thinking long term then you need to worry
about getting process right, not just outcomes.  It seems to me that the
current ICANN resolution on WIPO gets the substance right enough (if not
quite like how I might have ideally wanted it).  I am not persuaded it
gets the process right, given the kerfuffle over the DNSOs, and more
importantly, the issue of whether this Board ought to be doing substance
or standing up for the principle that it's up to the first real Board to
to do that.  Of course, if you are focused on the short-term bottom line,
this is not going to be an appealing argument...

On Sat, 29 May 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 01:50 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Jeri Clausing wrote:
> >the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the 
> >report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room
> >several times what you had done.
> 
> Somehow, I always thought that "in principle" was quite different from "in 
> detail".
> 
> In the more subjective realm, I've come to view the term "in principle" as 
> being used to mean -- rather clearly, frankly -- that there are 
> reservations about the details.
> 
> An opening 'graph that says "...endorsed a controversial set of 
> recommendations for cracking..." does not make this distinction and sounds 
> vastly more definitive, formal  and final than the much-later text "The 
> board deferred final adoption of the recommendations until...".
> 
> Sure enough, the national pickup of this article got exactly the wrong 
> meaning from it, failing to distinguish principle from detail, and initial 
> support from formal passage.
> 
> But, then, the article does not point out the very limited consistency that 
> Froomkin has, or to explicitly make clear that delay is in the interest of 
> NSI.  But who gets quoted?
> 
> For that matter, where are the quotations of support in the article?
> 
> As always, it is far easier to write a story about controversy than about 
> compromise.
> 
> d/
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
> Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
> 675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                    -->   It's hot here.   <--