RE: [ga] No Members?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:04 PM
> 
> On 2001-04-04 15:29:07 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> >> 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:
> 
> > First mistake: Limiting yourself to the ICANN web-site. You
> > therefore rely solely on their interpretation.
> 
> In fact, the ICANN site was the quickest reference for the relevant
> article I had at hand.
> 
> > Instead, go to the source;
> > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/corp.html
> 
> Thanks for the URL.
> 
> > search for "PART 3.  NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATIONS"
> 
> Sorry, but since when is ICANN a Nonprofit Mutual Benefit
> Corporation?  The last time I looked it was a Nonprofit _Public_
> Benefit Corporation, with part 2 of the law being applicable.
> 
> Also, please note that I was referring to Karl's argument at
> <http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/platform.htm#full-members>.  There, he
> refers to 5510, 5511, 5513, 5613, 5710, 5812, 6321, 6330, 6333,
> 6338, 5150, 5222, 5512, 5167, and - as the basis of his argument why
> at large members are statutory members - 5065.  All these sections
> are in part 2 of the law.  Do you seriously claim that Karl was
> entirely wrong - even about the part of the law which is applicable
> to ICANN?  Roeland, please don't be silly.

Considering that I quoted Karl extensively, I defer to him. Mea culpa, I may
have been wrong. But, not being a lawyer, that is allowed. Which, in
essence, was my point.

> >> - 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.)
> 
> > As mentioned earlier, to Kent, that's not even the appropriate
> > section. 
> 
> Karl says it is, and he agrees with ICANN staff on this point.  To
> me, this looks like strong evidence that it's indeed the right
> section.

I never pretended to be a lawyer, or definitive in Cali Law.

In fact, you will note that the main gist of my argument is tha Kent can't
be so certain either.

-- 
IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. 
--
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