<div dir="ltr">Way to go, the whole family is on-board now!<br><br>Fahd<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:00 PM, James S. Tyre <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com" target="_blank">jstyre@jstyre.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">> I am that board member.<br>
<br>
</div>And I was your lead lawyer. (Which, obviously, you know, but most here presumably don't.)<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Attacks on me made by ICANN in their legal filings were, to my mind, personal,<br>
> gratuitous, unprofessional, and, of course, unfounded. A decade has passed and I<br>
> can't remember whether we moved to exclude those on the grounds that ICANN's<br>
> "evidence" was not relevant to the case at hand or whether we left it in as<br>
> demonstrative of ICANN's way of reacting to those it considered hostile.<br>
<br>
</div>We filed token objections to some of it. The Court ruled in your favor without really addressing those objections. My particular favorite was Vint introducing a strongly worded email from John Gilmore to Vint as "evidence" of your supposedly bad character.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Even after the court threw out ICANN's defenses and granted me nearly every thing that<br>
> I had asked ICANN's press releases tried to characterize their utter defeat as if they<br>
> had won a great victory.<br>
<br>
</div>At least Louis gave us ICANN Staff coffee mugs to show for it. I still have mine. '-)<br>
<br>
--<br>
James S. Tyre<br>
Law Offices of James S. Tyre<br>
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512<br>
Culver City, CA 90230-4969<br>
310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)<br>
<a href="mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com">jstyre@jstyre.com</a><br>
Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>
<a href="https://www.eff.org" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org</a><br>
<div class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-">governance-</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:request@lists.igcaucus.org">request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach<br>
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 10:31 AM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:fahd.batayneh@gmail.com">fahd.batayneh@gmail.com</a><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN stumbling on a hornet nest<br>
><br>
</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> On 09/02/2012 01:49 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote:<br>
> Le 02/09/12 09:27, Roland Perry a écrit :<br>
> ><br>
> > What's different about the ICANN system is that a lone voice can<br>
> > make a complaint which will be heard.<br>
><br>
> > Maybe a good example would be the court case that was filed by an<br>
> > earlier ICANN board member to get access to documents that ICANN<br>
> > rejected to reveal to him.<br>
><br>
> I am that board member.<br>
><br>
> Have you ever tried to chop eucalyptus logs with an ax? The wood is so rubbery that<br>
> the blade just bounces off, leaving only a small notch: a lot of effort for little<br>
> progress.<br>
><br>
> ICANN is like a eucalyptus log. If you want to affect it don't bring an ax; bring a<br>
> chain saw.<br>
><br>
> ICANN did not change much after my law suite prevailed. In fact in some ways they<br>
> changed their procedures to become even more secretive. For instance their law firm<br>
> changed their billing procedures so that rather than enumerating the specific items of<br>
> work and charges for that work the monthly statements became a one-line statement of<br>
> the total amount of money due for the month's work. This was done, I believe, to<br>
> prevent any future board member from evaluating the nature and quality of ICANN's<br>
> massive outflows of money to the law firm that created ICANN.<br>
><br>
> Attacks on me made by ICANN in their legal filings were, to my mind, personal,<br>
> gratuitous, unprofessional, and, of course, unfounded. A decade has passed and I<br>
> can't remember whether we moved to exclude those on the grounds that ICANN's<br>
> "evidence" was not relevant to the case at hand or whether we left it in as<br>
> demonstrative of ICANN's way of reacting to those it considered hostile.<br>
><br>
> Even after the court threw out ICANN's defenses and granted me nearly every thing that<br>
> I had asked ICANN's press releases tried to characterize their utter defeat as if they<br>
> had won a great victory.<br>
><br>
> And I am still ostracized by many former ICANN board members for taking (and, of<br>
> course, winning) that completely justified legal action.<br>
><br>
> Many of the case materials are online:<br>
><br>
> > <a href="https://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/Auerbach" target="_blank">https://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/Auerbach</a><br>
> > _v_ICANN/<br>
><br>
> What surprised me the most was the degree to which ICANN was, and I believe remains,<br>
> an entity that does not comprehend the role of its board of directors, both as a<br>
> collective body and as individual members.<br>
><br>
> The larger consideration is that ICANN has always had an institutional paranoia the<br>
> engenders an automatic, visceral hostility to things that are not delivered wrapped<br>
> with almost sycophantic deference.<br>
><br>
> --karl--<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>