William and all,
William X. Walsh wrote:
> On 19-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> > William and all,
> >
> > William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think PGMedia is a credible plaintiff, Jeff. I know you do (no
> > > surprise there in light of, well, that subject is for another time).
> >
> > I think the fact that pgMedia had the both the guts to bring the case
> > in part, stands for itself as to their creditability an sincerity with
> > respect
> > to fairness, and doing the right thing. This cannot be said for IOD
>
> Fairness is the last thing I think the PGMedia position is about, Jeff.
Everyone has an opinion. Some are like posterior orifices, and carry
the appropriate odor as well, such as yours in this case.
>
>
> > as of yet not for that matter for Iperdom. It would be best as I posted
> > earlier on this thread if all of them would work together in bringing a
> > legal case here.
>
> I do not think either of them (should they bring legal actions) should work
> with PGMedia unless and until PGMedia committs to setting aside their claim to
> the plethora of TLDs they want to operate.
This would be a draconian strategy and would carry a negative effect to
such a case.
>
>
> I think working with a PGMedia that is sticking to that position would be more
> harm then good to their case and credibility, not to mention their chances of
> success.
Well I am glad you are not practicing law. You would starve. Keep doing
those tax returns William.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > A more credible plaintiff will have more support and be able to make a more
> > > convincing and compelling case.
> >
> > I thought that their case was quite compelling, a judge say it differently.
> > This however has only some effect on the case itself when the appeal is
> > heard and more discovery is complete as Paul has already given us a
> > peek at and anticipates.
>
> Did you miss the other responses on this? There is no more discovery on
> appeal, Jeff.
I didn't say that there was more discovery on appeal. There is more
discovery before the appeal is to be heard however.
> Ad homanin remarks sniped
>
> > > And the appropriate defendent is not NSI,
> > > Jeff, as PGMedia insists. They are going about it all wrong.
> >
> > I agree in part here. It is acctually more of a case that the IANA
> > is the more proper defendant. However there is a separate case
> > still pending from pgMedia against the IANA.
>
> If so it is a moot one. NSF made it clear that IANA did not have that
> authority either.
Very true. And my point in part.
> Even if IANA had been so inclined, it did not have actual or
> operational ability to do so.
Very true as well, yet they claimed that they had the authority to instruct
NSI to do so or not to do so.
> If you disagree with this, you must be trying to
> rewrite history.
Not at all, See above comments.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 19-Mar-99
> Time: 20:31:02
> ----------------------------------
> "We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
> of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
> - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
