On Friday, 8 July, 2022 19:02, Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> said:
>Spammers are a scourge and I hope you get that $trilliion. But ICANN
>will fairly easily deflect most legal efforts based on a claim that
>ICANN bears responsibility. Years ago I proposed a solution from King
>Croesus as described by Herodotus: to drag each ill doer over a bed of
>wool cards, but it seems to have fallen flat as perhaps too extreme for
>modern sensibilities. ;-)
Of course ICANN will be able to deflect the use of their name by the other co-defendant for the purposes of threatening to interfere with the economic benefit of a contract (even though the co-defendant is the one issuing the threat of economic interference). I am not interested in ICANN, per se. It is, however, within the realm of possibility that the non-ICANN co-defendant is correct in their assertion that the liable party is ICANN. If ICANN is not the snivilling guilty party, then they will, of course, be found such by the court. It would be perspicacious for them, however, to ensure that they "go after" the organization using their name is vain, as it were. Since they have not done so, they will not be saved their costs.
--
(CAUTION) You are advised that if you attack my person or property, you will be put down in accordance with the provisions of section 34 & 35 of the Criminal Code respectively. If you are brandishing (or in possession) of a weapon then lethal force will be applied to your person in accordance with the law. This means that your misadventures may end in your death. Consider yourself cautioned and govern your actions appropriately.
