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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 06:48:02PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> 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.

They are the key factor as far as the corporation is concerned.  That is
the nature of a corporation, as opposed to a government

> 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.

Karl wasn't representing the corporation.  He could say whatever nonsense
he wants, as long as it isn't libel.  Now, however, he is representing 
the corporation, and he has personal liability if he does sufficiently 
stupid things.

[...]
> > 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.

Or a veto from registries for things that would put them out of
business, or a veto from registrars for the same reason.  An
organization under control of a totally open membership could simply
decide, for example, that all domain names should be free. 

> 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?

To tell you the truth, I don't think this is rocket science, I don't
think the lawyers have screwed up, and I don't think it makes any
significant difference where ICANN is incorporated. 

> Of course, I'd call the current constituency structure, and the UDRP
> results to date, "pathologically stupid",

stupid from whose point of view?

> but let's leave those debates
> out of this thread.

Well, OK.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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