Re: [ga] MINUTES OF MEETING OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> this is a "me too" candidate post! Yet a little more.
>
> Bill asked candidates to spell out the obvious. Amen.
>
> I agree with Joana: this always a good thing to reveiw bills. But I want to
> add that Jones Day does professionally a great yet job.
>
> However this job is aimed at:
>
> - maintaining the ICANN non monopolistic fiction in the US legal and tax
> environement. This is purely in the USG benefit. Several foreign law
> solutions would achieve this at no cost. I am sure that Vany could document
> the status of the Panamean Foundations on that matter. I could to about
> French or Belgium non-profi associations.
>
> These costs should therefore be incured by the DoC.

  Well this is never going to happen.  Of that you can be assured.

>
>
> - developing a contractual policy. This is due to the choice of a
> non-profit corporation solution. Having no legal rights, the ICANN tries to
> weave contract rights in a way a corporation has to do it. It is the costly
> and rigid consequence of the point above.

  Yes and not a very good or even successful approach either.

>
>
> Having the ICANN structured as an association of stakeholders would
> establish at no cost much stronger legal Memebrship links at no cost and
> much lower maintenance costs.

  I agree as do most of our members, but the previous and current
ICANN BoD and staff obviously do not agree.  Hence where we are
presently.  The only question that remains in this regard is: Can we
change this from within ICANN at this stage?

>
>
> These costs should therefore be reduced by a real factor in resuming the
> IANA approach.

  Well the IANA approach was proven failure.  So I don't recommend
this approach either.

>
>
> In that perspective I do not see the necessity of keeping Jones Day
> practice. I would propose to select a legal practice more oriented towards
> international non-profit associations.

  Agreed here.  This would be a good step in the right direction.

>
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 02:10 23/08/01, Joanna Lane said:
> >on 8/22/01 3:56 PM, William S. Lovell at wsl@cerebalaw.com wrote:
> >
> > > Bottom line: ICANN is mostly a Jones Day cash cow. I hope
> > > that all of the candidates for the Board of Directors take note
> > > of this.
> >
> >Certainly, I'd scrutinize Jones Day. If they cannot account for
> >irregularities, I would back any campaign to remove them.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Joanna
> >
> > >
> > > Bill Lovell
> > >
> > > Andy Gardner wrote:
> > >
> > >> At 7:18 AM +1200 23/8/01, DPF wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:49:59 -0500, Bruce James <bmjames@swbell.net>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> PAYMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES
> > >>>>
> > >>>> During the months of February and May 2001, the fees associated with
> > >>>> these outside services were US$105,209.90 and US$78,650.70,
> > respectively.
> > >>>> Given the discounts ICANN receives from Jones Day in recognition of its
> > >>>> non-profit character, the effective hourly rate for the legal services
> > >>>> covered by these two invoices is approximately US$200, well under
> > the rates
> > >>>> ordinarily charged by lawyers with comparable experience and credentials
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> work of this type.
> > >>>
> > >>> My mathematics works out that in February 2001 there must have then
> > >>> been 525 hours spent on ICANN business, which would be least three
> > >>> lawyers working full-time just on ICANN issues.
> > >>
> > >> Can we get some sort of discount factored in regarding the registry
> > >> agreements that were originally written by Jones Day but were so bad they
> > >> needed to be re-done?
> > >>
> > >> And can we assume that since we were told by Jones Day that the new
> > >> agreements were non-negotiable, any time they spent in the ensuing
> > >> negotiations was done at a zero rated fee?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Andrew P. Gardner
> > >> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> > >> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> > >> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
> > >> --
> > >> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > >> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > The URLs for Best Practices:
> > > DNSO Citation:
> > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> > > (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> > > Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
> > > Part I:
> > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> > > Part II:
> > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> > > (Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
> > > Reader, which is available for free down load at
> > > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga@dnso.org list.
> >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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