Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mechanism...

[Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3 at torque.pothole.com>]

Nonsense. The court clearly states that ICANN's actions were in
violation of the laws of the state of California, where ICANN is
situated and incorporated (and inviolation of ICANN's own corporate
by-laws). That's plenty illegal for me.

ICANN certainly has a difficult task but they would be getting a lot
more sympathy from me if they would simply admit they completely lost
their case in court instead of instead of engaging is such obvious spin
doctoring.

Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       dee3 at torque.pothole.com
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   Donald.Eastlake at motorola.com

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:29:34 -0700
> From: Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu>
> To: ietf <ietf at ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion.  Was: Re: delegation
>     mechanism...
>
> Russ Allbery <rra at Stanford.EDU> writes:
>
> > However, ICANN has now been found to be engaging in illegal activity to
> > obstruct the ability of an independent director to perform his oversight
> > responsibilities.  This has been established in a court of law.
>
> Someone has correctly pointed out to me that the activities were found to
> be improper rather than illegal, or in other words civil rather than
> criminal.  While this doesn't change my opinion, that's a valid point, and
> my language was sloppy.  My apologies.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
>
>