[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN
nashton at consensus.pro
Sun Jun 29 07:40:21 UTC 2014
- the double-posting
In my case at least it seems you are conflating two things - the motivations and interests of the plaintiffs, and the relevance of the judgment.
The fact that the judgment is invalid is not a reflection upon the former (though if they’re chasing down this route someone is certainly giving someone bad advice).
It isn’t flippancy to call a spade a spade.
On 28 Jun 2014, at 20:52, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
> If nothing else the point is that the litigants appear to be
> tenacious, this has been going on for about a decade, and apparently
> well funded.
> I'm surprised at the flippancy with which some cast it all off as
> utter nonsense.
> It may well fail ultimately but I don't think this is being pursued by
> people prone to utter nonsense or frivolous pursuit.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the discuss