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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:31:33AM -0800, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > An open membership within the meaning of the California Code would be
> > corporate suicide for a corporation as emeshed in controversy as ICANN.
> 
> I disagree with that. First, in spite of the heated debates, to the best of
> my knowledge, ICANN has been sued precisely once in its two+ year history.
> (Regland). It's been my observation that most stakeholders are willing to
> abide by ICANN's decisions, albeit begrudgingly, rather than file suit. I
> think that says more about the good faith of ICANN's participants than it
> does about ICANN's invulnerability to suit.
> 
> Second, there are tens of thousands of non-profit corporations in
> California, and there are only a handful of reported suits by statutory
> members. ICANN is unique in some respects, but it's certainly not the first
> organization that ever had the potential for conflict among the membership.
> History suggests this is not a big problem.

How many of those tens of thousands of NPCs have a board member who has 
actively advocated that members bring legal action?

    "There are those who say that if ICANN has members that ICANN will
    be subject to derivative lawsuits.  I agree.  I believe that ICANN
    should be subject to derivative lawsuits -- that is simply part of
    the cost of being accountable."

        -- http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members


-- 
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