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

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

1/31/01 3:51:41 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:

>As far as your actions are concerned it really doesn't make any
>difference at all whether your interpretation of the bylaws is correct. 
>The intent of the corporation in approving the membership provisions was
>absolutely clear, and you know what it is: the corporation is not have
>corporate members.  If you think there is a problem with those
>provisions, then your appropriate action as a director would be to take
>that up with corporate counsel and fix the provisions, and not to
>deliberately broadcast a corporate legal vulnerability to the world. 

So now it is a legal "vulnerability", huh Kent?  Methinks, you change your 
tune faster than a weathervane spins in a tempest.  Don't bother venting on
Mr. Auerbach, I figured it all out myself Kent.  

>Your argument that ICANN could avoid that liability by accepting
>corporate members is specious -- the directors have already decided,
>with good reason, that having corporate members is not in the best
>interests of the corporation. 

Oh really?  What is their "good reason" Kent?  



Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 


--
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