Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] elections

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Actually if we were really obnoxious we could file another suit claiming
that ICANN fraudulently represents the interests of the "world" and that
there is in fact no method of the "World's" participating otherwise the
ICANN would have some open tie-in with the UN and a global endorsement of
the UN to operate the UN's namespace. Hmmmm. UN's Name Space. What a
concept.

In it (the lawsuit) we could petition the state of California to suspend the
corporate status until these critical legal issues are  resolved.

So why would this fly?

    1)    ICANN has failed to meet the terms of its own charter and goals.
It is specifically stated as being "incompetent" in its current form, but no
public input, from those that ICANN represents, has been formally used in
the restructuring of ICANN only its own, so while ICANN agrees publicly that
its broken, it will only take its own suggestions for fixing it. The net
effect is that it is giving ICANN a second bite at the apple. And - based in
this and ICANN's other actions, it clearly is not the representative of
anything but its own interests, and that is clearly a very serious problem.

    2)    By law, US Corporations, let alone California Corporations, MUST
operate when doing International Business, by a very precise set of extended
rules, including applying for and being granted waivers for dealing with the
"prohibited" nations. I may be wrong, but I didn't see any waivers from US
Dept of State that allow for ICANN to serve addresses into Syria or Iraq, or
... You see my point.

    3)    A corporation is setup to benefit some group of people. ICANN was
setup along the model of a public trust, that is a service bureau that does
something for the people it serves, only to do this ***there must be*** some
process put in place to determine how successful or how accurately the
organization was at following its own bylaws and their amendments and from a
"public Trust" point of view ICANN has done none of this that I have seen
making it also vulnerable at the California Secretary of State's office.

Am I crazy Karl or what? Your are a lawyer and you have one suit pending
already

Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Young" <Bruce@barelyadequate.info>
To: "At-Large Discussion List" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 6:34 PM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] elections


> todd glassey wrote:
>
> >ICANN should have relatively little to say in how this group operates
> >itself.
>
> It can say all it wants! :)  It will just have zero authority to mandate
> anything our membership doesn't endorse by vote!
>
> >And if it refuese to accept the AT Large Membership I suggest that suing
> ICANN is the smartest thing we can do then.
>
> Hmmm.  I'm not a lawyer, but we have members that are.  Any of you out
there
> want to comment on our chances under California corporate law to force the
> ICANN board to comply with their original mandate to provide for
elections?
>
> Bruce Young
> Portland, Oregon
> Bruce@barelyadequate.info
> http://www.barelyadequate.info
> --------------------------------------------
> Support democratic control of the Internet!
> Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de