Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@hi-tek.com>]

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:40:21PM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > > >In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
> > > >without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of the
> > > >Internet.  This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws.
> > >
> > > These two items demonstrate the pervasive tendency to debate about
> > > theoretical issues that have no factual basis in ICANN legal documents.
> > >
> > > As people claim to be serious participants, they should consider the
> > > responsibility that participation carries, to be adequately educated about
> > > the relevant fact, not theory.
> >
> > Generally speaking, your two last comments here are not only misguided
> > but wrong.  Policy is about theory.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by that, or why you think it is important.
>

Let us be clear here, I wrote that "Policy is about theory".  The reason it is
important is because in order to help develop policy we have to know what it is.

> > The only factual basis that comes
> > from "legal documents" (I suppose you mean this as documents which are
> > not illegal) is the fact that the document exists.
>
> "Legal document" is a common term meaning "document types that have
> special significance in a legal context", like contracts, or documents
> like birth or marriage certificates that are placed in a public record.  The
> context in which the term "legal documents" was used and to which I was
> referring was not a legal context, and the documents were not specified.  That
> is why I made the statement for clarification.
>
> Anyway, you have veered quite far from my original statement:
>
>     "In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
>     without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of
>     the Internet.  This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws."
>
> This is a fact.  Moreover, officers and directors of a corporation
> always have a fiduciary duty to the corporation, a duty that is defined
> in laws concerning corporations.
>

Said laws also clearly mandate a membership, in that we are talking non-profit
here.  So there is a legal moral and ethical duty to have members and then
excercise that fiduciary duty to them.

>
> The point is that the board has a fiduciary DUTY to look at the VRSN
> proposals, regardless of what the DNSO says, and regardless of whether
> "policy" is at issue.  Like it or not, the corporate officers are the
> ones who have responsibility for the corporation, not the DNSO.
>
> > As people claim to be serious participants, they should be made aware
> > that just because an oldtimer says something does not make it so.  The
> > GA needs to be more interested in what interested participants have to
> > say and less on historical facts which impede progress.
>
> Of course - that's the whole purpose of the GA -- to ignore facts ;-)
>

Well it is easier that way and a lot more fun ;-)

>
> > The GA is not
> > to be dominated by, technocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers or
> > lobbyists.  It is a General Assembly not any particular groups Assembly.
>
> In fact, the GA is not dominated by technocrats, bureaucrats,
> businessmen, lawyers, or lobbyists.
>

This I do not know to be a fact.

--
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