RE: [ga] What makes a corporation?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> 
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> > It certainly appears that way Ollie...
> 
> You may be right, Stan. If that were the case, corrective measures
> would be required.  Among the responses (not necessarilty to me,
> but back and forth between others), I find the spectre of the large
> corporation having huge voting power, since they sell votes and
> they can pile up endlessly. (It is only in this kind of weird Internet
> context that the selling of votes, with prices listed, is announced to
> the world.)  So the next question is, what good are they? Is it not
> the BoD that ultimately makes the decisions on various things? 

The is exactly the issue, Ollie. But, to be fair, the output of the DNSO,
including the beknighted NC, has been abysmal, as had been noted by some, on
the WG-Review list. The work product and credible track record is somewhat
lacking. Even when it sppears to get close, someone pulls out a wildcard
trump, because they didn't like the first answer. Like what happened with
the WG-Review report (take your pick ... many more than one).

This was my opinion, expressed at the time;
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01554.html

> I have seen nothing that would legally bind the BoD to do anything
> -- except as some have pointed out, abide by the Bylaws and
> have a DNSO.  But where does it say that those things on which the
> DNSO speaks out, presumably on the basis of what its various
> constituencies have voted to do, must be followed by the BoD?
> And if the BoD does its own thing regardless, what recourse is
> there?  I can think of a few, but would like to be educated as to
> what viable options really exist.  

Actions of the GA are definitely not binding on the NC. Likewise, NC actions
are not binding on the ICANN BoD. ICANN BoD actions are the only ones that
matter and they have a history of not listening to many ... kind of like the
ol' IANA ...

> (One suggestion I saw a few
> days ago, that everyone boycott so that the DNSO disappears,
> I don't see as viable.)

This is also my belief.

> Bill Lovell

ciao ..

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 7:19 PM
> >
> > The issue, of course, is whether the present structure is such that
> > "constituencies"
> > are simply ghost-like wraiths that ineffectively float 
> about the real
> > action; there is no
> > actual need for any constituency for dominating TM owners 
> because the system
> > is
> > already locked in to their advantage. Is that what we have here?
> > Bill Lovell
> > --
> > 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
> 
--
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