[wg-review] Constituencies, 1 governance and legality

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Dear Mr. Crispin,

> The U.S. Government turned over it's governmental authority to ICANN.

"Sorry, that is absolutely silly.  The USG did no such thing.  It has
explicitly stated that." (Crispin)

Oh no, I am sorry, if you read the material which is posted on ICANN's
web site you would see you are very wrong. Give a citation to this
outlandish statement.

"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the
non-profit corporation that was formed to assume responsibility for the
IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name
system
management, and root server system management functions previously
performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities."
(perhaps a translation is necessary, please let me know your native
tongue and I will be happy to help provide you with one)

The rest of your circular argument stems from a complete lack of respect
for the same contracts you purport are the whole basis for ICANN's
existence.

The corporate by-laws and articles are in fact a binding contract with
either the stockholders or in this case members of the corporation. (I
apologize here because I believed I was dealing with a lawyer the way
you twist words around) Any attorney can explain that. Go back and
review the earliest posts regarding Calif. Corporations code.

"Nonsense ...the bylaws and articles are relatively unimportant."
(Crispin)
This is disgusting, I am sure that laws and morals are equally
unimportant to you Mr. Crispin)

By it's own charter ICANN, as shown by the amended by-laws which I
copied and included in my last post on this subject, has members. In a
non-profit these are the same as stockholders.  In this case they are
members of the Internet Community as a whole.( again this is a quote
from a binding legal document or as you like to say contract)  So now
when you talk about contracts, let us be clear the corporation is only
really binding it's stockholders interest in the corporation.  Therefore
when ICANN signs a contract they do it on my behalf as a member. (see
derivative actions against corporations)

Let me put it another way;  If ICANN continues to break it's contractual
relationship with it's own members who is going to enter a contract with
ICANN.

I believe what you are really trying to say is that if ICANN does not do
what the registries and root servers tell it to do then it will be shut
down by those very powerful forces. I love thinly veiled threats.  Just
remember by law and history the CORPORATION is its MEMBERS(in for profit
parlance, stockholders).

I dare these megacorp registries to take their contracts elsewhere, as a
matter of fact I know of some engines that could replace Network
Solutions tomorrow.  Keep in mind that in your corporate world ICANN is
a monopoly.  If it follows it's mandate and allows grass root
representation of the "Internet Community as a Whole" it can fare very
well.



One last point your comments suggest that we should investigate the use
of constituencies and contracts with registries for forms of insider
trading and self dealing.

--
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