Subject: RE: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation mecha nism...

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:36:24 +1200

I shouldn't add more to this thread but from recent experience I have found
that all ICANN decisions regarding the modification of the root(.) must be
approved by the US Department of Commerce. So most of the frustration of the
users dealing with reasonable requests (both parties agreeing) comes from
the fact that ICANN totally shield the US Department of Commerce
bureaucracy. Add ICANN bureaucracy and you have Brazil (la la la la la
laaaa, Braaazilll...)...

May be Karl should get a court order to access the documents in the US
Department of Commerce to have an idea on how the Department of commerce
makes his decisions.

Also to record names instead of titles in IANA records obliges you to find
this guy who was the head of the computer department and who decided to
retire as an hermit in the jungle of Brazil (la la la....)

Cheers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2002 7:09 
To: ietf
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Correcting an incorrect assertion. Was: Re: delegation
mechanism...

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.