Re: [ga] No Members?

["Kevin J. Connolly" <connollyk@rspab.com>]

An action for a declaratory judgment is a full-dress lawsuit. "Declaratory Judgment" is a kind of remedy, just as "Damages" or "Injunction" are other kinds of remedies.

This kind of exercise will get very pricey very quickly. And to what end? Does anyone really think that they can stage a boardroom coup and take control of ICANN away from the existing board? And even if they did, what makes anyone think that DoC or the Internet Community would pay the least mind to ICANN rather than whatever new organization would be cultivated by the DoC, et al, in the wake of the coup.

Get real. This discussion is just a waste of datagrams.

Kevin J. Connolly
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would come with an invoice.

Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
     Love, like you've never been hurt.....
          And dance, like no one's watching.

>>> Eric Dierker <ERIC@hi-tek.com> 04/04/01 06:36PM >>>


"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Thomas,
> If the mechanism being discussed does in fact hold that the At Large
> members are statutory members, under the California law, that gives a
> clear and direct mechanism for the dismantling of ICANN's "Top down"
> structure that they have worked so hard to hide under an illusion of
> "bottom up" consensus.
>
> I think such an exercise would certainly be helpful.   The ICANN board
> has shown that unless and until it is FORCED to reform or making
> appropriate changes, it will not do so.  The only way to force ICANN
> to actually listen to the internet community, instead of it's
> corporate/IP and government puppetmasters, may be to bring it in front
> of a judge, and this provision provides the mechanism for doing so.
>

I seem to recall there is something called a declaratory judgemnt, which
can be applied for in California, both sides get to fully brief the issue
and then a judge tells them what their contract means legally. I don't
even think it has to hurt either of the parties it is more like a request
for definition. And I am reasonably certain one of the at large members
could bring it, filing fee under 200 and a three page form can handle it
almost all on line.

Maybe Karl should do it and end the debate once and for all.
IM(nl)HO.

--
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 information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.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