Re: Fw: SO structure - private

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 08:29:48AM +0100, Per Koelle wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
> > 
> > Could someone please tell me what the reason is for this change in
> > mind cause AFAIR in Monterrey almost everybody has agreed _not_ to
> > incorporate.
> > 
> > 	Carsten Schiefner (.de)
> 
> Hi Carsten.
> 
> You are absolutely RIGHT !!!
> We agreed that it was too dangerous in terms of lawsuits.

Most of the likely lawsuits will be over DNS issues.  If the DNSO is 
separately incorporated, then, it will be named in all such 
lawsuits.  And it seems almost certain that ICANN would be named as 
well.  Thus, as far as all dns related lawsuits are concerned, ICANN 
and the DNSO have a common fate.

On the other hand, it might be the case that the PSO and the ASO
would not otherwise get sued, and thus there may be some reason for
them to separately incorporate.  But anyone that named all the 
members of ICANN in a suit is just as likely to name the PSO/ASO and 
all their members, it seems to me.

My limited understanding is that one of the primary purposes of 
corporations is to shield the members and officers from liability, 
however, and I just don't see the advantage there might be for 
separate incorporation.  Perhaps some of the legal minds on the list 
can give us a brief lecture on the pros and cons?

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html