[CWG-Stewardship] [CWG-RFP3] CCWG California Law Response

[Chris Disspain]

Hi Milton,

> Try to avoid personal insults, both in tone and content.


Excellent idea. Let’s all do that. 

> The topic of conversation here was the Jones Day interpretation of California law and whether ICANN as corporate entity and its law firm will seek to preserve its power.

That may be the thread but the topic of my comment and the one to which you responded was my suggestion that what Kieren said was a fact was not a fact.


> Your status as a board member with an fiduciary interest in supporting the interests of the ICANN corporation is a relevant factor in this debate.


As I said:

"…..I am more than capable of dividing my responsibilities/opinions as a Board member from those as CEO of auDA from those of an individual. I appreciate that as an academic you have no experience of doing this…."

I rest my case.


Cheers,

Chris

On 10 Feb 2015, at 13:05 , Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  
>  
> From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo at auda.org.au] 
> 
> You do yourself a disservice by pulling out the Board member card.
>  
> MM: I am not sure what kind of disservice I have done to myself, but I think you are the one who is sending this debate into the gutter. Try to avoid personal insults, both in tone and content. The topic of conversation here was the Jones Day interpretation of California law and whether ICANN as corporate entity and its law firm will seek to preserve its power. Your status as a board member with an fiduciary interest in supporting the interests of the ICANN corporation is a relevant factor in this debate. Asserting that academics have no experience in this or that is not a relevant argument.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150210/a0a0d1cd/attachment.html>