[wg-review] InternetCorporationAssignedNamesNumbers of CA, USA is it?

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Karl Auerbach writes (excerpted from: http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members)

>"By avoiding even the use of the word "election" (and using "selection" instead) the ICANN side-show artists are attempting to claim that there isn't 
>even any voting going on - and you will note that the California statute depends on people having a "right to vote"."

I guess ICANN's only a California Corporation when they need to be...  How'z it in OZ, Down-Unders?  Cheers mates!  :-)

>"One has to be pretty silly, or stupid, not to recognize that there is, in fact, an election going on.  But ICANN is depending on blind acceptance of their 
>artifice. By placing the definition of the selection/election process into a "plan adopted by Board resolution" ICANN is trying to claim that the 
>selection/election is not made "pursuant to a specific provision of a corporation's articles or bylaws"."

I wish to briefly address the issue of Karl's words "blind acceptance of their artifice".  I care enough about the free flow of Information to understand that 
the Internet is too important a thing to botch or clutter up.  I do not wish to see a USG-Disneyland-Las Vegas-Hollywood-Dreamscape-Game-Brought-to-
you-by-Chrysler-Daimler version of the Internet.  I hope there are others out there who agree with this sentiment, and frankly, I hope they are many!  Of 
course, this is not to say that these aforementioned groups (Hollywood et al.) do not have their place, they do, but they must know that it's just that- one 
place among others, *many* Others.  The Internet serves diverse purposes and functions, not simply those of "special interest" or ultimately minority 
groups who currently wield clearly disproportionate power in its decision-making processes and policies.  I think it's important that everyone of us make no 
mistake that it's all about Information and who controls it's flow.  

I care enough about myself to understand that there are others like me out there who wish to have a voice in what will IN REALITY (not cybermyth) affect 
ALL of US and OUR FUTURE.  I strongly suspect there are opposed groups who would thwart individuals like myself, as these are contrary to their 
"special interests".  But, I know that if enough of US realize there's strength in numbers- not *just* in FIGURES- we will have found our fulcrum point.  
Numbers can generate figures pretty quickly. 

>"This is a legal shell game that has no purpose except to evade the clear intent of the California law and to eviscerate the rights accorded to people 
>who are in all senses of the word, "members" of ICANN.

Actually Karl, I don't think there's anything "legal" about it.  

>"It is a shell game that should be stopped.

The sooner the better.

>"There are those who say that if ICANN has members that ICANN will be subject to derivative lawsuits.  Iagree.  I believe that ICANN should be subject 
>to derivative lawsuits - that is simply part of the cost of being accountable.  ICANN can avoid being liable to such lawsuits simply by acting properly and 
>conforming its actions to the dictates of law."

I care enough about the workings of ICANN to understand that what is necessary in the process of ICANN self-government, is that the Members (ALL of 
them) realize the value of the Corporation to each of them individually, and as a whole.  In fact, it is the responsibility of bona fide Members to perpetuate, 
cultivate, and foster their common Project TOGETHER.  Otherwise, what right does anyone have to be here at all, even at open invitation to this WG (as 
it clearly was [YJ Park verified this already])?  Any claim to a right of Opposition to such a Globally Public endeavour as ICANN, is clearly not in the 
interests of the Global Public @Large.  

>"One might also want to remember that the bulk of ICANN's expenses have been to pay legal bills - and these costs have been incurred to create 
>precisely the kind of prejudicial rule that we've been talking about here.  And since we, the Internet users, will ultimately bear ICANN's costs, we will 
>ending up paying for the costs of our own disenfranchisement."

How *do* those lawyers do it?  ;-)

Just wanted to get all of that off my chest.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc.

P.S.  How about the idea of a revolving, delegated, and dedicated co-chair to tackle the issues for this WG?  Does anyone besides Dr. Michael Gendron 
"think this makes good sense."?


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html