[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN
bzs at world.std.com
Sun Jun 29 19:11:55 UTC 2014
On June 29, 2014 at 09:40 nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) wrote:
> 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 =
Legal contests are often a matter of both.
> The fact that the judgment is invalid is not a reflection upon the =
> former (though if they=92re chasing down this route someone is certainly =
> giving someone bad advice).
The fact? What fact?
The only fact I see is the judgement as it stands.
If a court of competent jurisdiction rules it invalid only then will
that become the fact of the matter.
Your use of "fact" and "certainly" seem hyperbolic to me.
> It isn=92t flippancy to call a spade a spade.
No, but it seems to me flippant to characterize opinions and best
guesses as facts and certitude.
The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
More information about the discuss