Nonsense. The court clearly states that ICANN's actions were in
violation of the laws of the state of California, where ICANN is
situated and incorporated (and inviolation of ICANN's own corporate
by-laws). That's plenty illegal for me.
ICANN certainly has a difficult task but they would be getting a lot
more sympathy from me if they would simply admit they completely lost
their case in court instead of instead of engaging is such obvious spin
doctoring.
Donald
======================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com
155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Donald(_dot_)Eastlake(_at_)motorola(_dot_)com
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Russ Allbery wrote:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:29:34 -0700
From: Russ Allbery <rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu>
To: ietf <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation
mechanism...
Russ Allbery <rra(_at_)Stanford(_dot_)EDU> writes:
However, ICANN has now been found to be engaging in illegal activity to
obstruct the ability of an independent director to perform his oversight
responsibilities. This has been established in a court of law.
Someone has correctly pointed out to me that the activities were found to
be improper rather than illegal, or in other words civil rather than
criminal. While this doesn't change my opinion, that's a valid point, and
my language was sloppy. My apologies.
--
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>