RE: [wg-review] Re: [wrg-review] Constituencies, 1 governance and legality

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> Moreover, if you step back from the "ICANN is a government" 
> mindset for
> just a moment, the whole idea becomes ludicrous wishful 
> thinking.  Think
> of some other non-profit corporation -- think of the American 
> Red Cross,
> for example.  Directors would be *criminally negligent* if they opened
> up the corporation to the liability risks of including a random
> self-selected population as members.  Do you really think 
> that allowing
> any arbitrary person in the world standing to bring legal 
> action against
> the corporation would be in the best interests of the corporation? Do
> you really think that any lawyer who didn't want to be disbarred would
> suggest such a stupid thing?
> 
> I don't know how to put this any more plainly: from a simple common
> sense point of view it would be pathologically stupid to 
> create the kind
> of membership that you are thinking about.  The world is full of crazy
> people on missions.  An open membership within the meaning of the
> California Code would be corporate suicide for a corporation 
> as emeshed
> in controversy as ICANN. 

A few points;

Much of the controversy revolves around representation of constituent
interests, as part of a consensus process, mandated by the DOC, via Green
Paper, White Paper, and IFWP process.

California non-profits do this. If ICANN hadn't wanted to do this then they
should have incorporated elsewhere. They were told, I am among a few that
can legitimately say "I told them so". Even, the DOC suggested DE
incorporation, which the interim BoD nodded to and subsequently ignored. At
the moment, I'm sort of glad that they didn't listen.<sigh> I even ran up
the warnings about the over-riding CA laws and statutes. The argument that
you are having, right now, covers exactly the ground I was talking about
back then, over 2 years ago.



--
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