RE: [ga] Re: Pont of order

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> IFF the ICANN *and* the NC recognize the post then you *may* be correct. But
> the liability and responsibility are diluted at least three levels. In
> addition, Harald and Roberto would have to act independent of both the ICANN
> and the DNSO NC in order to be liable for any action.

Recognition of the post has some relevance if it was a proper
election.  But Harald and Gato are parachute babies of the NC and ICANN
and that alas establishes the concept agent and agency.  An important
concept in liability.  What master do you serve is the question that is
asked to establish liability in any court of law.

Like I've said before - over and over again - Harald and Gatos are liable,
but it's the BoD that pays for their indescretions.

> > If he were smart he would ask the NC for a reply and if the NC had no idea
> > it would refer to the BoD at ICANN.  That's the correct method and follows
> > the pecking order of corporate responsibility.
> 
> I think that you essentially said the same thing that I did. I said "duck"
> and you gave directions on how he should "duck". IOW, you're quibbling.

It's proceedure.  

> I am not quite sure that the office is officially recognised. As stated
> before, there is no extant documentation supporting a GA chair. They hold a
> non-existant office. You have to first prove that the office exists. This
> may be difficult, especially if they know how to be properly uncooperative.
> I could think of at least three different ways to raise your life-is-hell
> factor, on this issue alone.

I don't have to do anything of the type.  Gato and Harold have by their
conduct established the concept of agency.  A court of law is not in
itself interested in following the ICANN bullshit of bylaws and
regulations and documentation.  Much of ICANN's structure even though
designed to remove the influence of the participants does not eleiminate
the liability therein.

> Why not? You've been determinedly disruptive since the day you came in here.
> You've even admitted it at one point. Why should I expect you to change now.
> Besides, if you were really going to sue then you'd have had the process
> papers on their way to the ICANN's registered agent a long time ago and
> wouldn't need to telegraph your move by asking for the registered agent
> address in public. In California, such information *is* a matter of public
> record, especially for a non-profit. If I were suing someone, the first that
> they would hear about it is when the process was served, preferably with
> less than 72 hours notice, in my home court (If'n you're going to fight ...
> do it right and NEVER give a sucker an even break [Marquis of
> Queensbury?!?!? Who dat?])

Sueing is always a last resort.  It is prefferable to settle and solve the
problem first.  Looks better in court.  And I gurantee you I'll be making
an effort to avoid that sort of thing.

> All you would have to do is look up their corporate filings, which were even
> published on the Internet at one point. These filings, by law, have to list
> a point of process service, aka their registered agent. They HAVE to accept
> process service at that address, or their charter becomes at risk.
> 
> MHSC pays fees to registered agents in three states. One of them happens to
> be in California. I just cut the check today. This is why I know, even
> privately-held corps have to do this. I can't believe that you don't know
> this.

It's always better to ask and have a co-operative response - especially
from a public non profit such as ICANN.  Responses which are themselves
evasive, which these have been look bad.

Regards
Joe