[CCWG-ACCT] Sockpuppy gets an injunction

[Greg Shatan]

Spot on.

Greg

P.S. Here's the court order/opinion.  No need for reporting.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:

> Michele,
>
> It's much deeper.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> I think the AUC issue is a red herring, but the IRP comments are also
> worrying.
>
> 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. I remain unconvinced that the
> measures proposed by the CCWG Accountability could prevent this challenged
> conduct from happening.
>
> greetings, el
>
>
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
>
> On 13 Apr 2016, at 22:28, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
> michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe when it’s reported somewhere as opposed to just a press release ..
>
> In any case I don’t see how this ridiculous case dragging on and on and on
> helps anyone
>
> Maybe ICANN should simply give the applicants the strings they originally
> applied for – this would solve the problem and there’d be no conflicts
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> [...]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160413/79aab9f2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 75-Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction-DCA-Trust-April1216.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 43866 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160413/79aab9f2/75-Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction-DCA-Trust-April1216-0001.pdf>