[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-b] Re: ICANN's Mandate

To: d3nnis <d3nnis@mciworld.com>
Subject: Re: [wg-b] Re: ICANN's Mandate
From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 19:10:23 -0400
CC: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>, wg-b@dnso.org
References: Conversation <19991009181612421.AAJ104%gromit.edventure.com@karachinsky> with last message <19991009181612421.AAJ104%gromit.edventure.com@karachinsky> <MAPI.Id.0016.00303969726238313030304330303043@MAPI.to.RFC822>
Reply-To: mueller@syr.edu
Sender: owner-wg-b@dnso.org

Dennis:
You are beginning to get a handle on what ICANN is all about.

d3nnis wrote:

> By  issuing it as a "policy" statement though, the Department of
> Commerce has achieved the effect of creating new law which has
> slipped out of the due process arena.  In addition, because it is
> officially "not law", it is insulated from Constitutional challenges.

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [wg-b] Re: ICANN's Mandate
  - From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>

References:
- [wg-b] Response to Jonathan's Question
  - From: d3nnis <d3nnis@mciworld.com>

Prev by Date: Are famous marks New Law? (Re: [wg-b] Re: ICANN's Mandate)
Next by Date: [wg-b] lying then, or now?
Prev by thread: Are famous marks New Law? (Re: [wg-b] Re: ICANN's Mandate)
Next by thread: RE: [wg-b] Re: ICANN's Mandate
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread