Re: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Auerbach v ICANN - Karl Won

[Lawrence Solum <Lawrence.Solum@lls.edu>]

The message discusses Joanna Lane's suggestions re Karl Auerbach's 
inspection of ICANN corporate records:

Some suggestions:

Re question one--director and officer ownership of Verisign stock:  It 
is unlikely that ICANN has any records re stock ownership in Verisign 
by directors.  Under the California Corporations Code, so far as I can 
see, there is no obligation for ICANN to maintain records of the stock 
ownership of its directors and officers.

Re questions two and four--ICANN's legal bills:  Karl can attempt to 
look at these records, but ICANN will undoubtedly assert attorney-
client privilege.  I am not sure whether Karl will even be permitted 
to examine the records in his own lawsuit against ICANN, because, with 
respect to the lawsuit, Karl and ICANN are in adversary position.  
With respect to other billing records by Jones Day, I would expect 
that ICANN would assert attorney-client privilege.  The normal 
procedure would then be an in-camera review of the records.  
Eventually, a redacted version of the records would result and that 
redacted version could be released.  This raises a further question, 
which is what happens if the process is not completed before Karl's 
term expires.

Karl might consider legal strategies for dealing with the expiration 
problem, e.g., expedited decision of any privilege questions and/or an 
extension of his right to inspect.

----- Original Message -----
From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
Date: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:53 pm
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Auerbach v ICANN - Karl Won

> Point 1. ICANN must now answer the question, "What aspect of the 
> publicinterest is served by filing an appeal?", for above all, 
> ICANN must act in
> the public interest, directing limited resources for this purpose, 
> and this
> purpose alone, not to advance its own mission. In the face of a 
> court order,
> they cannot afford to commit further public resources to oppose 
> the public
> interest for which purpose they exist, or they lose double. This 
> is a
> Herculean task.
> 
> Point2. Karl, as an elected representative of the At Large is 
> about to
> inspect the records. What questions do we, the electorate ask him 
> to answer?
> I suggest that send him a list and to start, I would submit:-
> 
> 1. On Conflict of Interest Issues: Which Directors and /or their 
> immediatefamilies were shareholders in VeriSign stock immediately 
> prior to the
> approval of the VeriSign Contract regarding.com?
> 2. How much has ICANN spent on defending the Auerbach lawsuit so far?
> 3. Who is the .org consultant?
> 4. Has Jones Day provided a breakdown of their charges for legal 
> services to
> ICANN or on what basis do they charge exactly?
> 5.
> 6.
> 
> I'm sure you can do better than this, please feel free to add 
> questions.
> Regards,
> Joanna

Snipped at this point. 


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