[discuss] Some more legal tangles for ICANN

Mon Jun 30 17:37:07 UTC 2014

Having been involved in a few law suits the reactions are always
roughly the same. They seem to mimic the Kubler-Ross stages of grief
somewhat.

1. This is ridiculous who are these people?

2. They have no right!

3. That can't proceed, the facts are a mess!

4. They are absolute idiots and understand nothing of the law.

5. I have found a detail, a coup de grace, which completely
   invalidates their case!

6. Perhaps we'd better settle.

That's all I'm trying to say.

I don't find such analyses much more useful than a flip of a coin in
practice.

Unfortunately many, many civil suits / judgements in the US at least
aren't settled by wrangling over substantive issues.

More often your phone rings and your attorney explains they are
willing to take $100,000 (pick a number) cash right now without
prejudice or you can spend $200,000 minimum to fight with them and no
that's not recoverable if you win. And of course you might lose --
courts can be fickle and/or you could be wrong or missing something,
some ace up their sleeve so to speak.

(A more cynical surmise of that same moment is: I have extracted all
the legal fees out of you I believe you are prepared to spend, and the
other party's attorney feels the same about their client, so let's
just bury this one right now -- bird in hand you know, my bird that
is.)

Or they are thrown out due to some lack of jurisdiction or procedural
error.

So if you think I am disputing your assessment of the substantive
issues I assure you I am not other than pointing out that it's
probably a lot fuzzier than is being presented (see #5 above.)

-- 
        -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*