[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

Nick Ashton-Hart nashton at consensus.pro
Mon Jun 30 10:18:42 UTC 2014


On 29 Jun 2014, at 21:11, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:

> 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?

I won’t repeat them again, they’ve been stated several times very clearly in this thread.
> The only fact I see is the judgement as it stands.

Then you are being very selective in what you are reading, or accepting.

> 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.

Read more closely. You’ll find there is very clear articulation of the fact that the US court does not have jurisdiction, and never could have.

>> 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.

I would argue that you are either unwilling or uninterested in seeing facts that are clearly and obviously the case. But that’s your privilege :)

-------------- 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/20140630/9313e8f2/signature.asc>

More information about the discuss mailing list