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

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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?

Obviously not, but the corporation's interests are not the key factor.
The question is what is best for the net, and indirectly for the users.

> Do you really think that any lawyer who didn't want to be disbarred would
> suggest such a stupid thing?

Karl has.

Besides, if lawyers could be disbarred for suggesting dubious legal notions,
or even for advocating preposterous notions in a court, methinks most of
them would be out.

> 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.

Methinks you are clearly correct. It seems to me that completely open
membership organisation, without some provision for veto of technically
idiotic suggestions by those who actually have to run the net, cannot
work.

The question is whether, by incorporating under California law, ICANN has
already committed this stupidity. If so, what do we do about it, other
than firing the lawyers involved?

Of course, I'd call the current constituency structure, and the UDRP
results to date, "pathologically stupid", but let's leave those debates
out of this thread.  

> The world is full of crazy people on missions.

.. and the net seems to get more than its share :-)

> An open membership within the meaning of the California Code would be
> corporate suicide for a corporation as emeshed in controversy as ICANN.

Likely. So if Karl's interpretation of the law is correct, ICANN has
already committed suicide.
--
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