A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>
> Rhonda Hauben wrote,
>
> > Is there some reason the brief wasn't filed with the US
> > government?
>
> ICANN was the lowest appropriate venue.
This is the approach of "exhausting administrative remedies",
something that can be used against you if you haven't done it and
appeal to a higher authority. But it can backfire. ICANN's lawyers
know what you are doing, so they finesse you, as they've finessed
the Commerce Committee. They add new bylaws saying they will conform
to the due process procedures you demand, and then they either
ignore those bylaws or invent a new device for getting around them
(like what they tricked up to defeat the At-large membership).
So starting at the bottom of the administrative chain has so far
(and we've been at it for over a year) resulted in nothing but a
worsening of the situation. And each time, ICANN's becomes harder to
sue, because you've shown them their weak spots and they have the
chance to cover them up.
> Others raised this issue - i.e. whether the style doesn't
> indirectly raise ICANN stature. I think not. The purpose
> was simply to encourage a reply and comment process where
> arguments and statements had some significant citations to
> authority. This should be compared to the GAC's pronouncements
> where Twoumey just waives his hand in the air and makes
> statements.
So if you succeed, they will simply hire another Jones Day lawyer,
paid for now out of public monies from the GAC participant's
governmental offices, who will scheme out how to get the GAC off the
hook.
============================================================
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
============================================================
