[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] elections
This was a very nice post and very correct and informative.
Brown's ferry and the theft of weaponry from the North was the impetous for
using it in the US under Lincoln. These suits are filed under seal and allow
the USG agency involved to do investigation prior to the actual litigation
commencing in the open.
I am unaware of a DoC investigative arm. Darpa brings some aspects to mind.
One may already be filed subrosa.
Eric
todd glassey wrote:
> Sorry Eric - I should have pointed out the Qui Tam (on the behalf of the
> King) type actions
>
> For thouse of you unfamiliar with the term:
>
> Qui Tam ("who sues on behalf of the king as well as for himself") is a
> provision of the Federal Civil False Claims Act that allows a private
> citizen to file a suit in the name of the U.S. Government charging fraud by
> government contractors and other entities who receive or use government
> funds, and share in any money recovered.
>
> However there is the problem with Qui Tam is that the Department of Commerce
> would likley at some point send its lawyers to help ICANN refute that there
> was a real cause of action, becuase of the egg on the US Governments face
> (ala the DoC's operations and ICANN's problems to date reflecting poorly on
> it) so it is my feeling that to be successful, a Qui Tam filing would have
> to be done in multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions to get around the
> US-only
> forum problem
>
> Personally one of the most possible suits may come from the Tokolu Islands.
> There is talk that they might sue ICANN for their negligence in the
> numbering/naming conventions such that the Chinese have stepped all over the
> .tk ccTLD. I don't know how credible this is, but this would be the
> fast-mover in the courts, since the .tk'ers can show real damages today from
> ICANN's negligence (IMHO)...
>
> Todd
> ----
>
> This is only my personal opinion and does not reflect on my employers or
> others.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <eric@hi-tek.com>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> Cc: "Bruce Young" <Bruce@barelyadequate.info>; "At-Large Discussion List"
> <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 7:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] elections
>
> > Look up Qui Tam.
> >
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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