[CCWG-ACCT] Sockpuppy gets an injunction

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.]

<Question> who is exactly ZACR? is this a private or a public entity.

Txs

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 13 Apr 2016, at 16:40, Dr Eberhard W Lisse 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