Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #347
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 5 2001           Volume 01 : Number 347

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:18:24 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:41:40PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > California non-profits MAY have members, but they do not have to.
> 
> That's right. The reason for the continuing debate is that, under some
> sections of California corporations law, corporations with statutory members
> are defined by whether members have certain rights -- such as whether the
> "members" can elect Directors, for example. But the creation of statutory
> members under the California law is dealt with in several different sections
> of the Code, some of which are seemingly contradictory, so it's a nuanced
> question that we're unlikely to answer here.

It is not nuanced at all.  The text is actually quite clear.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:36:00 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Thomas,
> If the mechanism being discussed does in fact hold that the At Large
> members are statutory members, under the California law, that gives a
> clear and direct mechanism for the dismantling of ICANN's "Top down"
> structure that they have worked so hard to hide under an illusion of
> "bottom up" consensus.
>
> I think such an exercise would certainly be helpful.   The ICANN board
> has shown that unless and until it is FORCED to reform or making
> appropriate changes, it will not do so.  The only way to force ICANN
> to actually listen to the internet community, instead of it's
> corporate/IP and government puppetmasters, may be to bring it in front
> of a judge, and this provision provides the mechanism for doing so.
>

I seem to recall there is something called a declaratory judgemnt, which
can be applied for in California, both sides get to fully brief the issue
and then a judge tells them what their contract means legally. I don't
even think it has to hurt either of the parties it is more like a request
for definition. And I am reasonably certain one of the at large members
could bring it, filing fee under 200 and a three page form can handle it
almost all on line.

Maybe Karl should do it and end the debate once and for all.
IM(nl)HO.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:40:09 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Joop,
>
> Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 2:14:07 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >  However, they are not standing as our representatives on the NC, but for
> > the role of Chair, which means that once elected they will have to go slow
> > on their personal opinions and enlarge their ear for the opinions that they
> > hear in the GA.
>
> A most important point, that seems to have been lost by some recently.
>

This is most certainly true, and it may be good reason not to elect me, because
my voice as an advocate may be more important to the GA, OTOH it may shut me up,
which may be more important to the GA.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 14:46:17 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

- --------------E60BAB5E6F629E2A01305442
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1:22 PM
>
> > What is the productive point behind dismissing an interesting
> > question with
> > such a disingenuous comeback?
>
> The point is that D'Crock is one of the architects of the status quo. He'd
> like it to remain unchallenged.
>

I know it is not right on point but is it true that Mr. Crispin and Mr.
CRocker have consulting contracts with the BoD of ICANN that relate to the At
Large "membership".  OTOH it is right on point if those contracts relate to
membership at all in any way.

Sinerely,

- --------------E60BAB5E6F629E2A01305442
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Roeland Meyer wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>> From: Sandy Harris [<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]
<br>> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1:22 PM
<p>> What is the productive point behind dismissing an interesting
<br>> question with
<br>> such a disingenuous comeback?
<p>The point is that D'Crock is one of the architects of the status quo.
He'd
<br>like it to remain unchallenged.
<br><a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html"></a>&nbsp;</blockquote>
I know it is not right on point but is it true that Mr. Crispin and Mr.
CRocker have consulting contracts with the BoD of ICANN that relate to
the At Large "membership".&nbsp; OTOH it is right on point if those contracts
relate to membership at all in any way.
<p>Sinerely,
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------E60BAB5E6F629E2A01305442--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:43:11 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:54:24PM -0700, Kristy McKee wrote:
> Now that we've heard from the cheerleaders will someone from the team 
> please answer the question... I'd like to know where the money went as well.

The original Markle grant was for a total of $200000, as I recall. 
There were over 150000 people who signed up, every one of them had a
letter printed and mailed to them, and most of those were overseas. 
Though I don't know the details, obviously the entire original grant
could easily have been swallowed in letter production and mailing costs
alone.  More than half of the people sent letters did not finish the
registration process; a very large number of letters were returned,
especially from countries with non-roman character sets. 

Jody Baram was the project manager, her $30,000 for 6 months included
benefits; that translates to around $30-40K per year as a normal paid
employee.  Chicken feed, considering how incredibly thankless and
stressful the job was.  I sure hope her next job was more congenial.

The program went way over budget; I believe that the shortfall was made
up through ICANN's operating funds, and perhaps an additional grant from
Markle.  Jody's contract was extended at least once to help deal with
the left over work, of which there was a lot.  There are boxes and boxes
of undeliverable letters that were returned.  They were still getting
returns from far away places, last I heard. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:57:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] No Members?

Hello Kent,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 2:18:24 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:41:40PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
>> > California non-profits MAY have members, but they do not have to.
>> 
>> That's right. The reason for the continuing debate is that, under some
>> sections of California corporations law, corporations with statutory members
>> are defined by whether members have certain rights -- such as whether the
>> "members" can elect Directors, for example. But the creation of statutory
>> members under the California law is dealt with in several different sections
>> of the Code, some of which are seemingly contradictory, so it's a nuanced
>> question that we're unlikely to answer here.

> It is not nuanced at all.  The text is actually quite clear.

Only if taken out of context and read completely alone.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:17:13 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

Kent,
You know, I would be most interested to know where you get this kind of
information from. It's almost as if there's a private dialogue running
offlist between you and a member of staff, providing you with answers to
questions as they crop up. I mean, how could you possibly know there are
boxes and boxes of undeliverable letters that contain a very large number of
addresses with non-roman character set unless you were there at the time
physically in the office handling the post. Very odd to my way of thinking.
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 5:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:54:24PM -0700, Kristy McKee wrote:
> Now that we've heard from the cheerleaders will someone from the team
> please answer the question... I'd like to know where the money went as
well.

The original Markle grant was for a total of $200000, as I recall.
There were over 150000 people who signed up, every one of them had a
letter printed and mailed to them, and most of those were overseas.
Though I don't know the details, obviously the entire original grant
could easily have been swallowed in letter production and mailing costs
alone.  More than half of the people sent letters did not finish the
registration process; a very large number of letters were returned,
especially from countries with non-roman character sets.

Jody Baram was the project manager, her $30,000 for 6 months included
benefits; that translates to around $30-40K per year as a normal paid
employee.  Chicken feed, considering how incredibly thankless and
stressful the job was.  I sure hope her next job was more congenial.

The program went way over budget; I believe that the shortfall was made
up through ICANN's operating funds, and perhaps an additional grant from
Markle.  Jody's contract was extended at least once to help deal with
the left over work, of which there was a lot.  There are boxes and boxes
of undeliverable letters that were returned.  They were still getting
returns from far away places, last I heard.

- --
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 18:16:26 -0400
From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

An action for a declaratory judgment is a full-dress lawsuit. "Declaratory Judgment" is a kind of remedy, just as "Damages" or "Injunction" are other kinds of remedies.

This kind of exercise will get very pricey very quickly. And to what end? Does anyone really think that they can stage a boardroom coup and take control of ICANN away from the existing board? And even if they did, what makes anyone think that DoC or the Internet Community would pay the least mind to ICANN rather than whatever new organization would be cultivated by the DoC, et al, in the wake of the coup.

Get real. This discussion is just a waste of datagrams.

Kevin J. Connolly
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would come with an invoice.

Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
     Love, like you've never been hurt.....
          And dance, like no one's watching.

>>> Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> 04/04/01 06:36PM >>>

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Thomas,
> If the mechanism being discussed does in fact hold that the At Large
> members are statutory members, under the California law, that gives a
> clear and direct mechanism for the dismantling of ICANN's "Top down"
> structure that they have worked so hard to hide under an illusion of
> "bottom up" consensus.
>
> I think such an exercise would certainly be helpful.   The ICANN board
> has shown that unless and until it is FORCED to reform or making
> appropriate changes, it will not do so.  The only way to force ICANN
> to actually listen to the internet community, instead of it's
> corporate/IP and government puppetmasters, may be to bring it in front
> of a judge, and this provision provides the mechanism for doing so.
>

I seem to recall there is something called a declaratory judgemnt, which
can be applied for in California, both sides get to fully brief the issue
and then a judge tells them what their contract means legally. I don't
even think it has to hurt either of the parties it is more like a request
for definition. And I am reasonably certain one of the at large members
could bring it, filing fee under 200 and a three page form can handle it
almost all on line.

Maybe Karl should do it and end the debate once and for all.
IM(nl)HO.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html 

*******************************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [email-masked]
*******************************************************************************
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:19:48 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] No Members?

Hello Kevin,

Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 3:16:26 PM, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:

> An action for a declaratory judgment is a full-dress lawsuit. "Declaratory Judgment" is a kind of remedy, just as "Damages" or "Injunction" are other kinds of remedies.

> This kind of exercise will get very pricey very quickly. And to what end? Does anyone really think that they can stage a boardroom coup and take control of ICANN away from the existing board? And
> even if they did, what makes anyone think that DoC or the Internet Community would pay the least mind to ICANN rather than whatever new organization would be cultivated by the DoC, et al, in the
> wake of the coup.

> Get real. This discussion is just a waste of datagrams.

Some might see either result to be a positive one, in light of this
board and ICANN's failure to meet up to its mandate to be a bottom-up
consensus organization.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:21:39 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To be or not to be?

Yeah, you're pretty serious, aren't you Dave?  To be honest Dave, I think
you know more about where that money went than you're letting on... BTW
Dave, would you mind telling us who your present employer is, just for
interest's sake, as it were...?

Thanks.

SS

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
To: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] To be or not to be?

> At 12:41 PM 4/4/2001, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >Or, maybe Kent Crispin or Dave Crocker can tell us?  So, Kent, Dave, what
> >did happen to the money?  Informally, of course Dave... after all,
perhaps
> >the good people at the Markle Foundation were referring to "money" in an
> >"informal" manner, like in the phrase "Show me the money!"?!
>
> Thank you.  Always glad to see a serious participant, pursuing serious
matters.
>
> d/
>
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
>
>
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:27:45 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

"Kevin J. Connolly" wrote:

Get real. This discussion is just a waste of datagrams.

Mr. Connolly,

Sorry but without your explanation I did not know. thank you for the free advice.

Very Sincerely,

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:29:07 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1:42 PM

> There are still two questions even I as a European who is not
> familiar with California law can ask after having read the relevant
> material (which is entirely available from the ICANN web site), and
> these two questions went largely unanswered:

First mistake: Limiting yourself to the ICANN web-site. You therefore rely
solely on their interpretation.

Instead, go to the source;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/corp.html

search for "PART 3.  NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATIONS"

> - Why does the California code specifically talk about a SPECIFIC
>   PROVISION IN THE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES, when the legislator's "clear
>   intent" was that any BOARD RESOLUTION which gives someone the
>   opportunity to participate in an election of board members should
>   be sufficient?  
>   
>   Also, if that's the intent, why is 5056 (d)(2) there? (See
>   <[email-masked]> from Kent Crispin for
>   details.)

As mentioned earlier, to Kent, that's not even the appropriate section. Such
mis-direction might fool a lay-person, but it wont pass muster in court. You
need to be looking under 7010, or thereabouts.

The main problem here is that the best word to describe the California legal
system is "Byzantine". IMHO, it's main purpose is to provide job security
for California lawyers <sigh>. Even they, are never quite sure. They would
be the very first ones to tell you that. Delaware law, by comparison, is
straight-forward, to the point, and unambiguous. That's why neither Kent's
statements nor mine, can ever be definitive. Also, why I invoke Karl's
credentials, why I pay lawyers wrt California law, and why I recommended
ICANN become a DE corp.

> - Why does nobody sue ICANN for membership rights? 
> 
>   I got an answer in private mail why one particular individual
>   didn't sue, but since - as you say - there are (multiple) other
>   participants in the discussion who are familiar with California
>   law, why don't these people take this issue to a court?

Because, no one has a sufficiently vested interest to underwite the cost of
such a suit. Who would win, how much, and for what benefit? Personally, I am
not a Public Benefit organization. I watch my own bottom-line, thank you
very much, and I don't see the return on  the investment, to either MHSC or
myself. Now, if the members of the @large (of which, I am not one) were to
collectively sue ICANN (it's called a class action suit) then we might get
somewhere. BTW, I am not at all sure that such a suit is not being prepared,
as I write this. Neither should you claim to be. Such things are unknowable
before the fact.

BTW, my personal view is that the California State flag is actually the
"Jolly Roger" in disguise.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:35:12 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:13 PM

> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 03:52:51PM -0500, Bruce James wrote:
> > 
> >    _>>>Thanks to everyone who registered to participate in 
> [1]ICANN's At
> >    Large Membership for this year's vote. With over 76,000 activated
> >    members, ICANN achieved its goal of a large, globally diverse
> >    membership. Double thanks to the At Large members who cast their
> >    votes!
> >    _
> >    ICANN's At Large Membership is selecting 5 members of 
> the ICANN Board
> >    of Directors in a worldwide online vote. One Director 
> will be selected
> >    from each of five geographic regions: Africa, 
> Asia/Australia/Pacific,
> >    Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North America<<<<
> >    
> >    
> >    1.)    A statutory member is one who has vote in an election of a
> >    Board Member.
> 
> Nope.  A statutory member is one who is explicitly described as a 
> member in the foundation documents.  The law *explicitly disavows" 
> voting rights as a sufficient criteria for membership.

In the last note, I caught you mis-quoting the wrong section of the code.

> >    2.)    A non statutory member is one who does not have a 
> vote in an
> >    election of a Board Member.
> >    
> >            What part is unclear?
> 
> It's clearly false. 

. and you are clearly wrong.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:36:22 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:18 PM
> 
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:41:40PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > > California non-profits MAY have members, but they do not have to.
> > 
> > That's right. The reason for the continuing debate is that, 
> under some
> > sections of California corporations law, corporations with 
> statutory members
> > are defined by whether members have certain rights -- such 
> as whether the
> > "members" can elect Directors, for example. But the 
> creation of statutory
> > members under the California law is dealt with in several 
> different sections
> > of the Code, some of which are seemingly contradictory, so 
> it's a nuanced
> > question that we're unlikely to answer here.
> 
> It is not nuanced at all.  The text is actually quite clear.

There you go acting like a lawyer again ...
The section you quote doesn't apply.

- -- 
IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:35:14 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To be or not to be?

Let me rephrase this:  Mr. Crocker, please tell us if you're currently under
contract from ICANN, and in what capacity and relation (specifically)?

I'm sure everyone will be interested in learning...  ;-)

SS

> Yeah, you're pretty serious, aren't you Dave?  To be honest Dave, I think
> you know more about where that money went than you're letting on... BTW
> Dave, would you mind telling us who your present employer is, just for
> interest's sake, as it were...?
>
> Thanks.
>
> SS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
> To: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] To be or not to be?
>
>
> > At 12:41 PM 4/4/2001, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >Or, maybe Kent Crispin or Dave Crocker can tell us?  So, Kent, Dave,
what
> > >did happen to the money?  Informally, of course Dave... after all,
> perhaps
> > >the good people at the Markle Foundation were referring to "money" in
an
> > >"informal" manner, like in the phrase "Show me the money!"?!
> >
> > Thank you.  Always glad to see a serious participant, pursuing serious
> matters.
> >
> > d/
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> > tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:35:42 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

Kent, how much were you paid for your work on the software?

Christopher

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

> The original Markle grant was for a total of $200000, as I recall...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:43:56 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] O/T - Robert the Bruce of Scotland

On Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:02 PM (AEST)
Dassa <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: RE: [ga] withdrawal of candidacy

> A little story which may be of some assistance to others is the story of the
> King who, when on the point of giving up, observed a spider attempting to
build
> a web, the observance of the persistence displayed by the spider convinced the
> King to rejoin a battle and continue the struggle.  In the end persistence and
> perseverance can win the day.  My apologies if I mixed up the story a little,
it
> was something I read as a youngster many years ago.

Bruce And The Spider
http://sookmyung.ac.kr/~u9911620/eng/story23.htm

Robert the Bruce and the Spider
http://www.showcaves.com/english/explain/History/Bruce.html
"If at first you don't succeed, try try and try again".

http://mygen.com/users/bruce/bruce5.html
Bruce adopted the same motto and spent the next eight years fighting the English
occupiers of Scotland until they were at last driven out.

http://hazel.forest.net/whootie/stories/bruce_and_spider_scotland.html
And to this very day, the victory and independence of Scotland is traced to a
spider who kept trying again and again to spin her web in a cave and inspired
the king of Scotland, Robert the Bruce.

Best wishes
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:50:11 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE:  serious participation in ICANN processes

At 01:02 PM 4/4/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>Cindy Merry asked, "Is there a simple explanation about what the purpose of
>the General Assembly is within the ICANN processes?

Today has provided us with good demonstrations of the purpose of the GA.

We see non-lawyers putting forward a legal claim (member/non-member) that 
a) was dealt with long ago, and b) is not tied to any immediate ICANN issue.

And we see questions about financial minutia, also being pursued without 
any indication that there is a real problem.

Hence: The GA is for pursuing trivial and irrelevant questions of minutia, 
pretty much to the exclusion of matters of ICANN substance..

d/

ps.  Such exercises are sometimes referred to as psychological 
masturbation, so I hope that those who have been putting these questions 
forward have at least obtained the desired release.

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:03:42 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?

On 2001-04-04 15:29:07 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:

>> There are still two questions even I as a European who is not
>> familiar with California law can ask after having read the
>> relevant material (which is entirely available from the ICANN
>> web site), and these two questions went largely unanswered:

> First mistake: Limiting yourself to the ICANN web-site. You
> therefore rely solely on their interpretation.

In fact, the ICANN site was the quickest reference for the relevant
article I had at hand.

> Instead, go to the source;
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/corp.html

Thanks for the URL.

> search for "PART 3.  NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATIONS"

Sorry, but since when is ICANN a Nonprofit Mutual Benefit
Corporation?  The last time I looked it was a Nonprofit _Public_
Benefit Corporation, with part 2 of the law being applicable.

Also, please note that I was referring to Karl's argument at
<http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/platform.htm#full-members>.  There, he
refers to 5510, 5511, 5513, 5613, 5710, 5812, 6321, 6330, 6333,
6338, 5150, 5222, 5512, 5167, and - as the basis of his argument why
at large members are statutory members - 5065.  All these sections
are in part 2 of the law.  Do you seriously claim that Karl was
entirely wrong - even about the part of the law which is applicable
to ICANN?  Roeland, please don't be silly.

>> - Why does the California code specifically talk about a
>>   SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES, when the
>>   legislator's "clear intent" was that any BOARD RESOLUTION
>>   which gives someone the opportunity to participate in an
>>   election of board members should be sufficient?

>>   Also, if that's the intent, why is 5056 (d)(2) there? (See
>>   <[email-masked]> from Kent Crispin for
>>   details.)

> As mentioned earlier, to Kent, that's not even the appropriate
> section. 

Karl says it is, and he agrees with ICANN staff on this point.  To
me, this looks like strong evidence that it's indeed the right
section.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler			    <[email-masked]>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:19:54 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:04 PM
> 
> On 2001-04-04 15:29:07 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> >> There are still two questions even I as a European who is not
> >> familiar with California law can ask after having read the
> >> relevant material (which is entirely available from the ICANN
> >> web site), and these two questions went largely unanswered:
> 
> > First mistake: Limiting yourself to the ICANN web-site. You
> > therefore rely solely on their interpretation.
> 
> In fact, the ICANN site was the quickest reference for the relevant
> article I had at hand.
> 
> > Instead, go to the source;
> > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/corp.html
> 
> Thanks for the URL.
> 
> > search for "PART 3.  NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATIONS"
> 
> Sorry, but since when is ICANN a Nonprofit Mutual Benefit
> Corporation?  The last time I looked it was a Nonprofit _Public_
> Benefit Corporation, with part 2 of the law being applicable.
> 
> Also, please note that I was referring to Karl's argument at
> <http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/platform.htm#full-members>.  There, he
> refers to 5510, 5511, 5513, 5613, 5710, 5812, 6321, 6330, 6333,
> 6338, 5150, 5222, 5512, 5167, and - as the basis of his argument why
> at large members are statutory members - 5065.  All these sections
> are in part 2 of the law.  Do you seriously claim that Karl was
> entirely wrong - even about the part of the law which is applicable
> to ICANN?  Roeland, please don't be silly.

Considering that I quoted Karl extensively, I defer to him. Mea culpa, I may
have been wrong. But, not being a lawyer, that is allowed. Which, in
essence, was my point.

> >> - Why does the California code specifically talk about a
> >>   SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES, when the
> >>   legislator's "clear intent" was that any BOARD RESOLUTION
> >>   which gives someone the opportunity to participate in an
> >>   election of board members should be sufficient?
> 
> >>   Also, if that's the intent, why is 5056 (d)(2) there? (See
> >>   <[email-masked]> from Kent Crispin for
> >>   details.)
> 
> > As mentioned earlier, to Kent, that's not even the appropriate
> > section. 
> 
> Karl says it is, and he agrees with ICANN staff on this point.  To
> me, this looks like strong evidence that it's indeed the right
> section.

I never pretended to be a lawyer, or definitive in Cali Law.

In fact, you will note that the main gist of my argument is tha Kent can't
be so certain either.

- -- 
IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #347
************************