<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Spot on.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">P.S. Here's the court order/opinion. No need for reporting.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Michele,</div><div><br></div><div>It's much deeper.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that DCA has no claim to .AFRICA, whatsoever, but, they have the right to be treated fairly AND to challenge ICANN's conduct.</div><div><br></div><div>And THAT is what this Preliminary Injunction is about. Whether DCA can prevail on the merits or (most certainly) not, they have some very compelling arguments, such as:</div><div><br></div><div>A monopolist awarding a contract that only it can award only under the condition that you can not sue them for whatever reason (which is very wide and includes, technically, intent, which DCA is using, hence they HAVE to allege intent, ie fraud) is not only amoral (as I have said before) but it also may violate (Californian) law. In the current proceedings DCA have led evidence in this regards which ICANN had opportunity to contradict by its own evidence. The Court, decided that the balance of probability on the evidence (submitted by DCA and ICANN) favored DCA. This may well change in the main action because there/then the burden of proof is higher.</div><div><br></div><div>ICANN has tried to present the Court with a fait accompli, by trying to delegate during this Court case. Courts don't like this as a general rule from a fairness perspective, and I read the Order as the Court being displeased. It is indeed unfair to DCA and as little as I am a fanboy of Sockpuppy, I am a very firm believer in fundamental fairness.</div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Never mind that the justification given by ICANN sounds silly. Which is another issue. Either is Jones Day stupid and/or arrogant or ICANN is resistant to JD's advice. Or both, of course. The delay is clearly caused by ICANN, whether by ineptness (as I suspect) or intentionally (as alleged by DCA).</span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">I think the AUC issue is a red herring, but the IRP comments are also worrying.</span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Now, this is just a Preliminary Injunction to maintain the status quo ante, but it does support what I have been concerned about with regards to ICANN's Accountability and the Transition. </span><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">I remain unconvinced that the measures proposed by the CCWG Accountability could prevent this challenged conduct from happening.</span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">greetings, el</span></div><div><div><br></div></div><div><br>-- <div>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4</div></div><div><br>On 13 Apr 2016, at 22:28, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <<a href="mailto:michele@blacknight.com" target="_blank">michele@blacknight.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>Maybe when it’s <span style="font-style:italic">reported</span> somewhere as opposed to just a press release .. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In any case I don’t see how this ridiculous case dragging on and on and on helps anyone</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Maybe ICANN should simply give the applicants the strings they <span style="font-weight:bold">
originally</span> applied for – this would solve the problem and there’d be no conflicts</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Michele</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>--</div>
<div>Mr Michele Neylon</div>
<div>[...]</div></div></div></font></span></div></div></blockquote></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>