At 12:08 PM 8/1/2002 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: >The following concerns my lawsuit against ICANN and highly incorrect >misstatements made on this list about the outcome of that action. > >I have no intention of turning this into a thread, but I do feel that I'm >within the bounds of etiquitte by sending a corrective e-mail. > >On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> 2. Note that Karl won the suit, but lost the war. He is now subject to >> the conditions that ICANN had originally wanted to apply for his >> access. The only difference is that now Karl is under a court order to >> conform to those rules. > >The writer of the above paragraph has his facts completely wrong. He is >doing nothing more than parrotting back ICANN's quite misleading press >release. > >ICANN lost utterly and totally - not a single issue advocated by ICANN was >adopted by the court. The court granted my motion for summary judgement. both parties requested summary judgment >ICANN's so-called "procedures" and the "restrictions" issued under those >procedures were rejected by the court with a kick that would be the envy >of a world cup champion. > >ICANN is trying to spin its complete loss into some sort of Pollyanna >story about how the result is what ICANN wanted all long. If this is >really what ICANN wanted, then ICANN ought to have acquiesed to my offer >to them back in September of last year. no, ICANN would have preferred to stick with the procedures that were established. However it seems appropriate to point out that the principal difference between the procedures adopted by ICANN's audit committee and the procedures recommended by the court differed primarily in the manner in which differences of opinion as to the releasability of material considered confidential by ICANN would be settled. ICANN recommended an internal procedure that, if not agreed by the director wishing to release them, would then be settled in court. Your proposal, that was recommended with one modification by the court, required ICANN to seek judicial remedy if given a 10 day warning, it disagreed with the director's proposal to release. In your original proposal you suggested a 7 day period. >ICANN's apologists can chose to deceive themselves, it is their right to >make themselves deaf, dumb, and blind. However anyone who choses to look >at the actual filings and orders will quickly perceive that the court >order invalidates the rules and restrictions that ICANN attempted to >impose - those rules and restrictions are now gone in a court-ordered >flash of light and smoke. And ICANN's attempt to self-decree that it can >bind and gag a Director has been made equally vacuous. Karl, restrictions are still there. If a director wishes to release information held to be confidential by ICANN, ICANN has a 10 day period in which to seek judicial review and restraint. At least that is the way I understand the order. >The writer of the quoted paragraph seems to have a complete >non-comprehension of the duties, obligations, and rights of a corporate >Director. > >I am merely doing what the directors of Enron ought to have done - I am >attempting to look at the raw information and make my own evaluations >rather than relying on the highly processed and self-serving packages that >ICANN management purveys. Karl, even under the procedures adopted by ICANN to accommodate full review while protecting confidential information allowed you and any director full access to corporate records. The court did NOT validate unlimited ability of any director to unilaterally release confidential information. In no case did ICANN seek to restrict actual access to documents but only to assure proper assessment of the releasability of anything considered confidential. >Under the court's order ICANN must start delivering materials by tomorrow, >August 2 - a mere 20 months after I first requested them. some material is not deliverable but only viewable/copyable at the ICANN site. vint > --karl-- Vint Cerf SVP Architecture & Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax