What I got out of it is the utter incompetence of ICANN's counsel. For that they paid $350 per hour?|
I could have argued better!
Actually, I think you're being too hard on ICANN's lawyers, and considering that I'm one of Karl's lawyers, it would be difficult to say that I'm an ICANN apologist.
Remember that, just before the oral argument began, the Court distributed to counsel a detailed tentative ruling which excoriated ICANN and which clearly signalled an intent to rule in Karl's favor. Also remember that, though the actual transcript is much more informative than news reports, there is much that happens at most hearings - body language, tone of voice and the like - that simply cannot be reflected in a cold transcript. Yes, this is trite, but you had to be there.
Jeff LeVee did a better argument than most would under the circumstances. The problem was not his oral argument, but that between the facts, our written filings and ICANN's written filings preceding the hearing, the hole out of which he had to try to climb was far too deep for any mere mortal. ;-)