Bill Lovell wrote:
>
> >>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>Can you explain about why this brief in being filed with
> >>ICANN?
> >>
> Reminds me of the old engineer joke, substituting lawyers:
>
> "Last yer I cudn't even spel enginire, and now I are one."
An unnecessarily rude remark. They would present their brief
somewhere else, I suppose, if they could figure out where. I've been
trying to convince them not to waste any more time with appeals to
ICANN and to put the time into preparing lawsuits. Needless to say,
I didn't get very far.
People have a need for authority. ICANN has been playing on this
weakness in human nature ever since it began. Most of us have
allowed ourselves to be drawn in by it at one time or another. Maybe
not you, Bill, but most everyone else. The IRC are having a little
more trouble than we did in weaning themselves. Also, they may have
themselves talked into believing that they are "exhausting the
administrative remedies", a very lawyerly way of treading water and
not exposing yourself to possible failure.
The brief has not, however, gone only to ICANN. I sent a copy of it
to the California Attorney General, the New York State Attorney
General, someone I know in the U.S. Department of Justice, and the
WTO Third Ministerial Conference in preparation for the next GAT
round. Some of these folks are, on my suggestion, archiving what I
like to characterize as "evidence". So the production of documents
like IRC's brief is not a wasted effort by any means, even if ICANN
ignores it, as they have everything else in opposition.
============================================================
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
============================================================
