[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

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 =
 > judgment.

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.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

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*