Re: [ga] No Members?

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2001-04-04 13:07:05 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Just because you, who is admittedly not as familiar with
> California law as many of the other participants in the
> discussion, do not agree with the positions being put forward,
> does not mean that you are justified in painting a relevant
> discussion as whining.

William, how about arguing your cause instead of attacking others ad
hominem?

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:

- 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
  <20010404072237.A26611@songbird.com> from Kent Crispin for
  details.)

- 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?

Please, William, before claiming that my contributions are
irrelevant because I'm not a California lawyer, answer these two
questions.  If the world looks like what Karl and you suggest, that
should be a fairly easy thing to do.

-- 
Thomas Roessler			    <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
--
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