Lawrence Lessig wrote:
>
> We share the same values. I know this from our conversations in the summer
> of 1998, during the IFWP process, and from reading over the years your
> continued, and passionate, criticisms of what has happened. Our disagreement
> is about strategy.
You may be right, but values and goals change as a result of the
methods employed to bring them about. My experience in politics,
which for me is just a word for dealing with people, is that in
order for the result to be useful the process must be educational.
In the present instance, the education has been to reaffirm the
helplessness and despair of the people in confronting naked power
and might. Regardless of what becomes of the Internet, this needs to
be undone.
> You believe the right response is to kill ICANN.
Let's say that I think it is necessary to undo what it has done,
expose those who have done it for what they are, and replace it with
a democratic institution more in keeping with what is best in our
American heritage.
> I believe that the best response to the threats that
> ICANN presents is to devote my time to working to reform it, in a position
> that could have some effect.
You speak of ICANN's threats, as if its evil were in the future.
What about the things it has already done, which in important ways
are far worse than almost anything it could do in the future? I'm
talking here primarily about removing the decision-making process
from those who use the Internet, from the populus.
> We also disagree about the proper way to conduct a discussion about how best
> to proceed. That was the thrust of my last email to you. I believe the most
> effective way to move the debate along is to give others the benefit of the
> doubt; to apply a principle of charity to their words, and deeds; and to
> avoid, as much as possible, attacks on their integrity or motive.
That sounds like a good way to proceed. Unfortunately, the
consequences of acting that way have been disastrous. Respect for
others has been used by them for accomplishing deceit. There comes a
time when it is necessary to recognize that not all people are
honest and forthright, that some may be dissimulating, and to call
their bluff.
> These
> presumptions are rebuttable, of course, and there are those within this
> process for whom I no longer hold these assumptions. But that is the special
> case.
It isn't, in my opinion. So far as I am concerned, anyone who, after
seeing what ICANN is and what it has done, still participates in its
tricks and shams, is unworthy of respect. I cannot respect people
who either join my enemies or, by their cowardice and self-interest,
allow them to hurt me. My charity does not extend to anyone who, by
their action or their inaction, hastens my loss.
> You say you don't care about people's feelings; that you're "not concerned
> with the reputations of individuals"; that justice is your calling; that any
> cost in pursuit of justice is well worth the price.
Well, I have not said all this. You are putting words into my mouth.
This is where e-mail as a form of communication falls down. In a
court of law there is a transcript and the chance to object before
mis-statements can have their effect. I never said that any cost in
pursuit of justice is worth the price, nor that my calling is
justice. I am no idealist, and I certainly don't believe that the
ends justify the means. Far from it. Rather, I think that the means
are, in the present case, themselves the ends. That is why I feel it
is necessary to actively oppose the installation of
non-representative individuals in positions of authority.
> But you are very quick, then, to complain that I have wrongfully attacked
> your reputation, using words like "slander." Apparently when the matter is
> about your reputation, it is no longer a question of "saving face," but a
> question of justice. I agree with that point, as applied to you, and to
> others generally. I don't care about saving face; I don't care about hurt
> feelings. My criticism was of the unjust manner in which you attack other
> people's character. That, to me, is a question of justice, and more to the
> point, it is ineffective to the ends we both seek.
I slandered no one, in the post you replied to, and your saying I
had done so was untrue. As to the things I said about your
colleagues (I mean the other lawyers involved in this affair), my
criticisms of them were neither unjust nor an attack. I limited
myself to stating what they have and haven't done. If what they have
and haven't done is bad, which I believe it is, then the injustice
is theirs, not mine.
> "Slander" is precisely what you are committing (though there is an
> interesting debate in the law about whether email should be considered libel
> or slander, I'll take the lesser charge). You are making false statements
> about other people's character and behavior, with at least a recklessness
> that is unjustified by the circumstances.
I have said nothing about them that was false, and indeed said
nothing about their characters. What I did say was that their
inaction has been self-serving. That I believe to be the truth.
> In case after case, and repeated
> in this email, you simply are wrong about the facts.
I don't think so. I think you are wrong. As a matter of fact, I
think you are unaware of the facts, so out of the loop have you put
yourself, no doubt in order to avoid having to take responsability
for what is indeed a very bad situation, but one which you could, if
you were not so afraid, alter for the better.
> And your errors, as you
> realize, have been pointed out to you before.
A little baiting now, Mr. lessig? I thought more of you than that.
Now I see just how badly stung you have been by my remarks, and how
much guilt you must bear.
> For example, you write of the Berkman Center that it "was instrumental in
> the demise of the IFWP"; and that it "call[ed] off the final and most
> important meeting of the IFWP."
>
> You are just wrong about the facts:
Not at all. They are common knowledge.
> First, as I would have thought obvious, there is something more than bizarre
> about the idea that in the mix of actors in the initial formation of ICANN
> -- representatives of the most powerful government in the world, the most
> powerful corporations in the world, the most influential law firms in the
> world, as well as key internet leaders, such as Postal and Cerf -- the real
> power in this game came from two law professors, and a director of a
> nonprofit charity.
I never suggested that the "real power" came from law professors or
a charity. But are you trying to pretend that the Berkman Center - a
principal Internet organization within Harvard University, not an
inconsequential thing, after all - has not been an important
collaborator and contributor to ICANN? I needn't defend the
arguments, so well known are the facts. Perhaps you are writing for
those who don't know what transpired, or who the Berkman is.
> As I said before, I've seen law professors with large
> egos in my life, but no one would believe something like this.
What, that Harvard University and its Berkman Center have
collaborated to make ICANN successful? Why should no one be able to
believe that? Yale University has, in particular via its secret
societies, provided the most prominent cadres of the American
intelligence community, including the founders and most powerful
directors of the CIA. Is there any reason why it is inconceivable
that Harvard University has been a major collaborator in the
creation of ICANN? And, as the facts prove, it has indeed been that.
But, once again, you must be talking for those who haven't any
knowledge of what has occurred between the Berkman Center and ICANN.
> But second, and more to the point, I know first hand what lead to the end of
> the IFWP process, as I was part of the negotiations in that process. Of all
> the "parties" in that negotiation, Berkman was the last pushing for the
> final meeting. We had been asked by NSI and IANA and IFWP's Tamar Frankel to
> help broker a deal among these three actors to facilitate a final meeting
> within the IFWP framework. Berkman had been, as you will recall, a strong
> supporter of the IFWP process over IANA's; I personally had gone to Geneva
> to help facilitate the drafting process, and had helped draft a final
> statement of principles that was to constitute the source document for the
> final meeting.
>
> Over a weekend in August, I had a series of telephone calls with NSI
> representatives and Joe Sims, representing IANA to facilitate a final
> agreement on terms for this final meeting. Sims resisted the idea of a
> meeting; he wanted to bypass IFWP completely. But he agreed, in what I
> believed was good faith, to attempt to negotiate terms on which he would
> meet to allow their draft bylaws to be considered with the IFWP draft.
There is something wrong here. The last sentence makes no sense. Why
would Sims want terms on which to "meet to allow their draft bylaws
to be considered with the IFWP draft", if he did not consider the
IFWP draft of any worth? And what does "meet to allow" mean?
> At a certain point in these negotiations, I was given reason to question Mr.
> Sims' good faith.
Will you excuse me, Mr. Lessig, while I stifle a laugh here?
> He informed me that he had reached an understanding with
> the key members of the IFWP board (he never named the names) that they would
> support IANA, and not the IFWP process. He therefore informed me that there
> was no further reason to negotiate, as there was no continuing
> organizational support from IFWP for the final meeting. At this stage,
> though NSI was strongly pushing for a final meeting as well, NSI decided it
> was more prudent simply to enter a negotiation with IANA. IFWP fell into
> apparent disarray, as the support from them for the final meeting had been
> compromised.
Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Neither Joe Sims, nor the IANA, nor NSI
had any real power to cancel an IFWP meeting. The IFWP, I may remind
you, was the International Forum on the White Paper, in response to
the White Paper's call for an assembly of the world's Internet users
to work out a plan for Internet governance. In that context, the
voice of any individual on the IFWP mailing list was equal to that
of Joe Sims, the IANA people, or NSI.
Why did you not ask Sims for the minutes of the vote taken in the
IFWP to cancel the meeting? Wasn't that the one and only way to
legitimize its cancellation? Where was your respect for democratic
process?
You blame Joe Sims, but it is you and the Berkman center who are to
blame. Your clear responsibility was to the IFWP, not to any
slick-talking lawyer from JonesDay, or even to IANA, and certainly
not to NSI, a small private corporation. You and the Berkman Center
failed in your civic responsibilty. You compromised democratic
process. In desparation, a few people who saw what was being done
met anyway and formed the Boston Working Group in order to save
something from the process that the Berkman Center had stopped on
the word of sharpster from JonesDay.
You and the other Berkman people are intimidated by what appears to
you as power, and let your democratic principles and your sense of
justice and right fall by the wayside. If you'd had the courage of
your convictions, you would have told Sims and the others that there
would most certainly be another meeting of the IFWP, that you had no
authority to cancel it (and neither had Tamar Frankel, nor its
Board), and that they could either attend it or not as they saw fit.
Period.
> You may rightly say I blew it. And you might rightly say I blew it because I
> trusted Sims to be negotiating in good faith. Those would be fair charges,
> and I have been more critical of myself than you would ever be for exactly
> this reason. But my willingness to take another at his word is quite
> different from saying the Berkman center was instrumental in the demise of
> IFWP.
If the Berkman Center had not consistently lent its lawyers to the
support of ICANN afterwards, people might be willing to go so far as
to suspend judgment on what was done to the IFWP. But the Berkman
has lent its people to ICANN. It has collaborated at every stage of
ICANN. For me and for many others, the Berkman has no credibility
left as a democratic institution, because it has betrayed the
Internet by collaborating with conspirators and, in my honest
opinion, criminals. (You will say that to use the word "criminals"
for the persons who made ICANN is an exaggeration; however, I don't
separate those who gain fortunes by breaking the law from those who
gain only a little.)
> The lack of resolve of some IFWP board members was more than enough to
> lead to its own demise
Then they could have been replaced. Who elected them in the first
place? This was an international forum, do you understand? No one, I
repeat, no one had the right to disband it, and certainly not one or
more interim board members or a chairperson. Since when do board
members or chairpersons decide without a vote of the membership to
disband international membership organizations?
The simple truth is that some people did not believe in the IFWP
process, and, because they are used to doing things behind closed
doors through power brokering, expected and allowed that to happoen
here. It is painful, I know, but it needs to be said that the
Berkman Center is one such.
> Berkman -- not IFWP, NSI, or IANA -- was the last
> actor still pushing for a final IFWP meeting, but our commitment to the
> process was to facilitate what these parties wanted.
No. Absolutely not. If the members of the IFWP, or at least the
majority of those who posted to its mailing list, had known that you
and the Berkman thought that your commitment to the IFWP was to
facilitate what NSI, IANA, and JonesDay wanted, they would not have
alloowed you to organize its meetings. Your commitment, whatever
that means, was to facilitate a convenient space for a meeting of
the IFWP, and perhaps also to try and see that democratic processes
were folloowed and that justice was done. Nothing more. No one
elected you as the negotiator with IANA, NSI, or IANA. No one gave
you the right to even talk to Joe Sims on behalf of the IFWP. And if
I had known that you, a person irrevocably naive and having
ingrained prejudices such that they will believe what a lawyer like
Sims tells them, were doing so, I would have energetically protested
it.
> These parties got
> exactly what they wanted.
And used you and the Berkman to do it. And, I might add, are still
using the Berkman to do it.
> You said: "Then why didn't you [criticize ICANN] at the time, and use your
> professional license and your influence to correct or stop it?" Again, you
> are wrong about the facts. I did precisely that. The first article I
> published in the Standard was exactly on that point; I gave a number of
> talks at the time pushing the same argument, and I said the same to everyone
> who would listen. But again, it is just not surprising that an organization
> that had won the support of the US government, and key support from Europe,
> and most powerful internet companies did not simply fold because a law
> professor criticized it. Again, you have a bizarrely inflated view of a
> professor's power (and fortunately inflated, if you saw what many professors
> actually say).
I didn't speak to your power as a law professor, but to your power
as a lawyer. Your power to use the law to try and stop what was
being done. And the chance to use that power has not abated. At any
time, you and the Berkman lawyers can go to the people of the United
States, through their representatives in the Congress and in the
courts, and ask that Sims, Touton, Roberts, and company be stopped.
Instead, you help them. That is, the Berkman, with which you are
still associated, does.
> By "professional license" I take it you mean why didn't I file a law suit
> against ICANN? Here again, your view is animated by a bizarrely mistaken
> understanding of the facts. You apparently assume that ICANN is a clear
> violation of US law. You assert as much when you criticize the integrity of
> Post and Froomkin for failing to file a law suit against this "violation of
> the law"; and you pile on the claim that the product of ICANN, UDRP is "an
> extra-legal institution in violation of the commerce
> clause to the U.S. Constitution."
I believe that to be the case, and to be fully supportable by
evidence. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate
commerce, and no one else. Certainly not JonesDay and Michael
Roberts.
> But the fact is, Michael, that is is just not clear that ICANN is in
> violation of "the law."
Nonsense. ICANN is in clear violation of the Constitution (Commerce
clause and separation of powers clauses), the federal Antitrust
laws, the Adminstrative Procedures Act, and the California
corporation statutes. The only reason that it still exists is that
the lawyers who know what's going on refuse to take action against
it. I have already stated what I believe are the reasons for this
refusal and won't add any more "slander" here.
> It may be; Froomkin has a wonderful article arguing
> that it violates in parts important aspects of the Administrative Procedures
> Act; it may well eventually be held to have been beyond the power of the
> Commerce Department to secure. But these are not clear questions; they are
> extremely hard questions of law.
Not so hard as you pretend. Alone, without the help of lawyers, I
have been able to put together a good case. If a few lawyers
committed to stopping ICANN got to work, they could have an
iron-clad case in a few months. There has been conspiracy. There has
been lying to Congress. There has been malfeasance by one or more
government employees. There has been deception and the use of sham
and trickery in the formation of ICANN committees. Added to the
fundamental illegality of ICANN, formed by special interests and
without legislation to regulate an important commercial activity, it
would actually be hard for a judge or jury to allow ICANN to
continue.
> They don't become clear by invoking human
> rights violations in Latin America, or by extreme rhetoric.
You are once again mis-characterizing what I said. Why do you need
to do this, if your arguments are sound?
> The fact is that
> if and when a court finally reviews the matter, it will be a hard matter for
> the court to resolve. (Your claim that the UDRP is "in violation of the
> commerce clause" will not be a hard matter to resolve. It is an absurd
> argument with no support in either the text of the clause or any Supreme
> Court authority.)
I'm amazed to hear you say this. In any case, this is not the place
to argue law. The unfortunate thing is that, because you are a
lawyer, people will believe you and not me. That is the grave harm
that the lawyers have done in this process. Not content to be
themselves inactive, they convince others to be inactive as well. In
an analogy I've made before but which is worth repeating, this is
like the third man in interrogations: one to ask the questions, one
to beat the victim, and the third man to repeat that it is useless
to resist.
> If I believed this were a clear question, or even close to clear; if it were
> even clear to me that ICANN is a violation of US law, then I would not be
> running for its board, and I would support litigation to challenge it.
That is not how it works. It's the other way round. Because you are
running for its board, you do not challenge it.
> But
> given the strong arguments that suggest it is a legitimate exercise of the
> federal government's power
I have never seen or heard a single one.
> and the crucial issues at stake, I believe, as
> Post and Froomkin apparently believe, that more good will come from working
> to reform the ongoing work of the institution than by launching a (likely
> hopeless) law suit to bring it down 4 years from now (when the case is
> likely to have worked its way through the system).
Are you saying that there is no system of law left in the U.S. in
which to fight injustice and wrongdoing? If that's the case, you
must be calling for revolution. That is what the Declaration of
Independence calls for. Is that what you mean here?
As to reforming ICANN, there is no way to reform a dictatorship from
within.
> And doing good is precisely what Froomkin and Post (and the Berkman center,
> independent of me) have done.
By convincing people that nothing can be done to stop the dictators?
> The criticisms of Post and Froomkin have lead
> to reforms of ICANN -- not perfect, and not fast enough, but certainly
> better than it was.
Better than it was? Are you serious? Has the interim board stepped
down and the users of the Internet taken their place? Has the
scammed-up DNSO been disbanded and a legitimate organization,
representative and democratic, been put in its place? Have the
anti-user provisions of the Registrar Agreements been deleted? Has
JonesDay been separated from it? Has CORE been disbanded? Have all
its policies been re-made after these changes were effected? If not,
how dare you say that reforms have been made?
> And Froomkin's latest work will, in my view, have a
> substantial effect in bringing about further change.
Change in his academic position, maybe.
> But you can't imagine that people like Froomkin or Post might be doing the
> work they are doing for any reason except their own personal aggrandizement.
Why else would they do it? It has no effect on ICANN.
> You say of them that they are just young lawyers, seeking some form of
> compensation other than "monetary recompense"; Froomkin and Post are
> apparently, according to you, doing what they are doing for to advance their
> "careers." The idea that they -- like you -- might simply be working to help
> promote the values of the internet is not even considered in your
> attacks.
If they want to help the Internet, then as lawyers they can use the
law to stop ICANN and allow a democratic Internet government to be
formed. Since they refuse to do that, I can't think of any other
reasons than selfish ones why they would be involved. And I am not
working to promote the values of the Internet. That is a bogus
claim. I am trying to protect my interests as a writer, my ability
to use the Internet freely, against those who want to control the
Internet for other purposes. I don't believe hype about
good-Samaritanism, so please don't try to con me.
> They are simply self-serving self-promoters.
>
> But why is this Michael? Is this because no one, including you, acts for
> anything except self interest (and if so, then what is the self-interest you
> are advancing?) or is it because only you in this debate are acting for
> something other than self-interest? And if it is the latter, then what is
> your evidence?
Sorry, but I can't make much sense out of that last paragraph.
Anyway, I'm sure it's been answered well enough, whatever it means.
> For you apparently have no idea at all about what leads to the promotion of
> academics like Froomkin or Post. If they were really concerned about the
> advancement of their academic careers, then writing the kinds of criticisms
> they have is precisely the LAST THING IN THE WORLD they should be doing.
> First, neither of them need any such advancement through works like this.
> They are both considered among the leading thinkers in the field of
> cyberspace law, and have been for the past 5 years.
I suppose this last (if true) is because of what they've written
about cyberspace. Isn't it?
I'm perfectly well aware of what academics must do to keep their
jobs. Primarily, they must publish. Most of my family are or were
academics, and that was all they worried about. Publishing.
> Second, if they were
> trying to produce work that might induce other law schools to hire them,
> this is not the kind of work that would help.
I didn't say they were looking for a job. But every academic has to
publish. "Publish or perish" is the key phrase. So cyberspace law
professors have to publish articles about cyberspace law. This is
clear enough, isn't it? Again, do you think you are you talking to
idiots here? Maybe you do. That would fit in with your other
arrogances, like claiming to know what's going on when you don't
participate and are absent, and like deciding to drop the IFWP
meeting without consulting the IFWP.
> Law professors at elite law
> schools have little understanding or patience of the internet. Careful and
> detailed criticisms of complex, obscure procedures is not likely to impress
> them.
There's nothing complex or obscure about what Froomkin writes. It's
about government corporations. Even I understand it. And what Post
usually writes about is pure socio-legal history, whether its
concerned with cyberspace or not. Nothing that law professors can't
understand. And the Internet touch is precisely what does impress
them. Cyberspace is the hottest thing around. But just keep
pretending that up is down and black is white. Someone will believe
you.
> Third, if you imagine they are jockeying to gain lucrative consulting
> contracts down the road, that is again completely implausible -- they are on
> the wrong side of the debate if this is what they want.
Not at all. David Johnson got a very lucrative position as NSI's
outside counsel, and he wrote the same stuff as Post, as can be seen
on the CLI.org website. Corporations are impressed with egg-head
lawyers, like to have them on their staffs, and pay big money for
mouthpieces who can spout all that chic cyberspace double-talk.
> Finally, if you
> think some how they get more compensation from their own university for this
> kind of work, you are again wrong. There is no way to understand the work
> they are doing here except as motivated, primarily and substantially, by the
> same desire you have -- to preserve the internet against the dangers ICANN
> might create.
Might create? This is a very bad joke, Larry. Repeating it doesn't
make it any funnier. How the @#$%& have they protected us from the
evils ICANN has already created?
> Bottom line on this one: You owe these two men an apology, Michael, and if
> you want to act on the high principles you push on others, you will do so
> immediately.
On the contrary, they owe me and all the other users of the Internet
an apology for not fulfilling their oath as lawyers to see that the
law is upheld, in the Internet as elsewhere.
> You have no good reason to question, as you have, their
> integrity or good faith, and a decent person would acknowledge his mistake
> here, and apologize.
I have every reason. And because I am a decent person, I am willing
to run the risk of incurring your and their displeasure by saying
the truth as I see it.
> (Again, as for your argument that by arguing to reform
> UDRP rather than abolish it because it is plainly illegal, the premise is
> false, so the conclusion is false. It may be illegal; I have indicated I
> think it is bad policy; but it is not so illegal as to make efforts to
> reform it corrupt, as you have suggested).
What you are doing is corrupt because you know it cannot work and
are doing it for ulterior motives, whether they be fear or ambition.
> Finally, as I have indicated, the work Berkman has done on the ICANN process
> since the summer of 1998 has, in my view, helped, but has been work which
> has been done without my help.
Helped ICANN, no doubt. I won't argue with that.
> When I criticized ICANN initially, as I have
> written elsewhere, I was strongly criticized by people I respected
> greatly.
Really? You respect greatly people who accept dictatorship? Is that
what they teach you at Harvard?
> One such criticism was from John Gilmore: His argument, reasonable enough,
> was that ICANN was here, and we should work to make sure it does good, as
> the costs of unraveling it now were just too high.
Oh, for god's sake. This is the timeworn excuse of every coward and
compromised person since the days of the bible.
> I could not stomach the
> idea of returning to working for the organization at the time; I said I
> would give it some time to see how it progressed before I returned to its
> criticism.
Which is it: return to working for the organization (ICANN?), or
return to criticizing it?
> But your suggestion that this signals my "laxness" indicates again your
> mistake about the facts. Though as I have said, I believed my time best
> spent elsewhere, the suggestion that I have not done anything here is silly.
> There are many battles being fought to defend the values of the original
> internet, Michael -- from defending end-to-end against the efforts by AT&T
> to architect broadband to give it power, to defending the right of hackers
> to publish code to crack Cyberpatrol, or CSS, to defending the right of
> Napster to challenge the business model of Hollywood, to litigating a
> challenge to the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, to fighting the explosion of
> patents. These battles, and scores of talks given around the world to get
> people motivated to join these battles (150,000 miles last year alone), have
> constituted my life for the last two years. For one just married, and trying
> to build a life with someone else, this may well be irresponsible. But I
> don't think that constitutes "lax."
If that's what you have been doing, then I retract the use of the
word. However, ICANN is the great threat, because ICANN is the major
component of the New World Order. Through ICANN, the international
banks and their operatives the world organizations controlled by
them (WTO, IMF, etc.)
will permeate the planet and control the way life is organized on
earth. This is being done for the advantage of a few, at the expense
of the many. The Internet, run by ICANN, is their great tool.
> You are a decent and serious person, Michael. I know from your friends that
> you have suffered extraordinary hardships in advancing your view of what is
> right. And again, your values here are right. But you are wrong and unfair
> to promote these views by writing as if you are the only one who has
> principle at heart. Or writing as if other people are not as sensitive to
> their reputation as you. I have no doubt that there are people in this
> process who are not operating from good faith; I have no doubt that there
> are people who don't want an internet of the sort you and I do; I have no
> doubt that there are many who would like to capture the ICANN process as
> they have captured much else in the government.
What do you mean "like to capture"? Throughout your post, you speak
of ICANN as if it were something in the future. The evil has already
been done. And ICANN cannot be captured; capture means a
sequestering, a taking. ICANN was created by conspirators. There is
no capturing involved here. You say "capture" and "like to" because
you want to pretend that it hasn't happened yet, so that you aren't
faced with the choices you fear. But it has happened. If you try to
convince yourself it hasn't, by saying "might create" and "like to
capture" and "threat", you will never be anything but ICANN's pawn.
> But the idea that those people are the people you are attacking is just
> silly. We can disagree about tactics, and we should argue about
> strategy.
Impossible, so long as you allow yourself to be used by ICANN, or
convince yourself that you cannot fight them.
> But I do not believe you have done the work to earn the right to question
> the good faith of the people you are attacking.
I believe I have.
> And I continue to object to
> the manner in which you conduct this debate: because it is ineffective,
> because it unfair, and because it is just plain wrong.
What is unfair and wrong is for you and the other lawyers involved
to continue telling its victims that there is no way to fight ICANN.
Michael Sondow
=================================================================
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS
http://www.iciiu.org (ICIIU) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel(718)846-7482 Fax(603)754-8927
=================================================================
