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

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

You may want to be careful here Mr. Crispin, California takes a dim view of
giving legal advice without a license.

Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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

--
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