Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

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

Karl and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 kent@songbird.com wrote:
>
> > > And it is accountability to the public that is so completely lacking from
> > > ICANN.
> >
> > How is Microsoft accountable to the public?
>
> I am surprised that you don't know this.  Please turn to page one of
> Shareholder Rights for Dummies:
>
> Call up a stock broker, buy one share of Microsoft common stock (which you
> can do today for a few dollars) and you get:
>
>   - A vote for directors (and often a vote to recall a director.)
>
>   - Access to corporate information.
>
>   - A right to bring lawsuits to compel directors and management to
>     operate the corporation properly.  (In some cases the cost of this
>     lawsuit must be borne by the corporation itself.)
>
>   - The right to vote on certain topics, including amendments to the
>     Articles of Corporation and other parts of organic documents.
>
>   - The right to put measures before the shareholders that, if accepted
>     by the shareholders, will supersede acts of the board.
>
>   - The right to gather with other shareholders to call meetings.
>
>   - The right to know who the other shareholders are so that you can
>     aggregate your voice and form voting blocs or to solicit proxies.
>
>   etc.
>
> That's called accountability.
>
> And it only costs a one-time price of a few dollars.
>
> Enron, Andersen, Global Crossing, and Worldcom are discovering the force
> of that public accountability.

  And even if you are not s stock holder in microsoft as you suggest
Karl, consumers (members of the public) can, have and will I am
sure again, hold companies accountable through the press if there
is reasonable reasons to do so, through the SEC if companies such
as Microsoft in Kent's obviously non comparable suggestion
to ICANN, the DOJ as has been and still is the case with Microsoft,
and perhaps through the FCC, if that company is involved in the
telecommunications business.

  In any event, Kent's proposal of seemingly comparing Microsoft,
a publicly held and traded company, to ICANN, an non-profit
company that is under contract constraints such as the White Paper
and the MoU and is responsible for advising DOC/NTIA on
internet central resources (DNS, Protocol and IP Addresses)
that are public resources, is certainly not a valid comparison
in a number of already ways as to accountability.

>
>
> ICANN, on the other hand, has repudiated its obligation to serve the
> public and be accountable to the public.  And that is a very strange thing
> indeed for a corporation that is organized as a "public-benefit"
> corporation, particularly one that obtains a subsidy from the public via
> its tax exempt status.

  Very much agreed.

>
>
>                 --karl--
>
> --
> 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 124k members/stakeholders 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:  972-244-3801 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