[ALAC] Something we didn't think about.

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Aug 21 00:52:53 UTC 2013

What do you mean there is "no formal way" to decide not to proceed?  Surely
you jest!  That is why you have Boards.

Now, we have a Jamaican saying loosely translated means 'any way you turn,
you will get speared'.  Undoubtedly the case here that every action has
legal jeopardy associated. For if ICANN were to accept that in two cases
the evidence for 'confusingly similar' trumps but in one case and for the
same string the fella who decided must be a mouth breather, then men would
have lost their reason! And the person aggrieved would have standing - good
standing under various codes - to sue in federal court.  And, if I were a
lawyer and itching for a good fight, I would take their money.

Reason - and good sense - dictates this is a case of all....or none. But it
would not be the first time that facts and reason are sacrificed for


Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

>  My understanding is that legally we are in murky water, since we
> seemingly have no formal way to stop the applications that have passed the
> objection, and no way to overturn the rejection, yet all three must be
> treated the same way.
> So perhaps you can define what "good sense" dictates?
> Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity
> objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments for and
> against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't.
> Alan
> At 20/08/2013 10:03 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> .....the zealot Paul [of Christian scriptures] says it this way 'we see in
> part, and we prophesy in part'.
> So now then, here's a perfect opportunity to see if good sense will
> prevail.
> -Carlton
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>  Verisign filed string-similarity objections against the three
> applications for .CAM. Two were decided last week (by the same panelist)
> against Verisign. The third, hear by a different panelist, decided for
> Verisign.
> A string similarity decision is supposed to be based on the strings
> themselves and not the usage, but the AG does not contemplate this
> occurrence.
>  http://unitedtld.com/icann-must-now-decide-string-similarity-question/
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
>  ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>  https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

More information about the ALAC mailing list