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

["Bruce Young" <Bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Thanks, Todd.  So any lawyers out there want to do some pro bono work on our
behalf?

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!


-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:10 AM
To: eric@hi-tek.com
Cc: atlarge discuss list
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] elections


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