|
Auerbach wins!
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 32 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
 |
Bret Fausett, who was in attendance, has details on his icann.blog. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bret Fausett has updated and moved most of his blog coverage of the case to this link. It includes a link to ICANN's press release on the ruling. Typical ICANN newspeak. Transparency is opaque. Bottom up is top down. A thorough spanking is a victory. And here is coverage from philly.com, who don't buy it. No doubt there will be more. With the UK Register picking up on another story that has been bubbling under the surface here (see also here), this can't be Veri$ign's best press day either. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
In their official statement ICANN says:
The ultimate effect of the Court order is essentially the same as the ICANN
procedure that Mr. Auerbach refused to follow.
From which it seems reasonable to conclude that they don't see any need to
appeal. Assuming they really mean it, of course...
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Brock Meeks of MSNBC has coverage here. Wired covers it here. Karl is so right, when will other BoD members get off their duffs? And when will those who (s)elect those other Directors demand that their representatives comply with their fiduciary duties? Oh, I guess it won't be anytime soon as the new selection committee brought in by ICANN reform will be stocked with cronies and stooges. Declan McCullagh, now at CNET, has coverage here. Cindy Cohn, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said in a statement. "Today's headlines exposing rampant corporate fraud demonstrate the need for careful oversight by directors." Exactly. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
I had to call Louie and congratulate him myself. I am sure thet on a day like this he is very happy to hear from Russ Smith. Much to my surprise Louie was answering his phone at 11:30 PM (8:30 west coast time). I suspect he fielding all kinds of responses to the decision.
I explained that a court case like that was not good enogh and I look forward to the day he goes to Pelican Bay. He then went into a very naive-sounding voice ... "What is Pelican Bay, I never heard of that." HEHEHEHE.
Pelican Bay Maybe the next (last?) ICANN meeting can be held there.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. This is a good day. ICANN was breaking the law and they've been slapped down. Please explain how this is a sad day.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily. First, what agreement? Second, read Bret Fausett's report. It states in part:"Confidential" documents, whether in electronic form or in hard-copy, shall be made available for Mr. Auerbach's review in Marina del Rey at a mutually agreeable time before August 9th. Mr. Auerbach cannot disclose the contents of a document designated "confidential" without giving ICANN at least 10 days notice (and the burden then would fall to ICANN to seek further protective orders preventing disclosure). Mr. Auerbach's access is not conditioned on his signing, or agreeing to abide by, the confidentiality form presented by ICANN. So the onus falls on ICANN to make the case why a document should not be made public, not the other way around. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
They are nearly identical twins, congenitally joined at the wallet, so if you get one you get the other. I have video of them jointly suckling at ICANN's teats. Ya gotta see it. $4.99/minute. Helluva deal. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
| 6 replies beneath your current threshold. |
Auerbach wins!