[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

Nick Ashton-Hart nashton at consensus.pro
Sun Jun 29 07:40:21 UTC 2014

- the double-posting

Dear Barry,

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...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140629/4a847836/signature.asc>

More information about the discuss mailing list