[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fed-up with ICANN? to: Re: [ICANN-EU] Disclosure of ICANN At Large Membership information
- To: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
- Subject: Fed-up with ICANN? to: Re: [ICANN-EU] Disclosure of ICANN At Large Membership information
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:43:08 -0800
- CC: Hans Klein <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>, DFARBER@FCC.GOV, edyson@edventure.com, Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>, Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>, barbara@simons.org, andy@ccc.de, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM, icann-europe@fitug.de, krose@ntia.doc.gov, Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency Discussion List <ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <3.0.1.32.20001111184233.010749e0@pop.compuserve.com> <a04320408b63344557f1f@[192.156.200.2]> <0ab301c04c15$12dd6fa0$df00a8c0@vaio> <3A0DCC20.5FF308D1@cavebear.com>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
Karl and all,
You are certainly not alone in your Fed-up feeling about ICANN and
more specifically the current ICANN board and the DNSO NC. I have
seen many posts that indicate clearly that you are reflecting a consensus
opinion.
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> JIM FLEMING wrote:
>
> > According to some ICANN Board members, ALL of the ICANN
> > records will be made public.
>
> Actually there's more to it than that. The California Corporations code
> clearly says that members of a corporation, i.e. the people who vote in
> an election for board seats, have the clear right to obtain the
> membership list.
>
> The California legislature has determined that the right of the electors
> in a corporate election to organize among themselves to fully exercise
> their franchise supersedes any right of privacy that those electors may
> claim with regard to the fact of their membership. This is nothing
> unique to the laws of California - this kind of provision is found in
> the corporations codes of many jurisdictions.
>
> If ICANN has a beef with this ICANN ought not violate California law -
> rather, ICANN should go to Sacramento and try to induce the legislature
> to change the law.
>
> I am completely fed up with ICANN's shell game in which it is trying
> every step possible to emasculate even the concept of an effective
> at-large.
>
> --karl--
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mike Roberts <roberts@icann.org>
> > To: Hans Klein <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> > Cc: <icann-europe@fitug.de>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 1:10 PM
> > Subject: [ICANN-EU] Disclosure of ICANN At Large Membership information
> >
> > > At Large Friends -
> > >
> > > ICANN receives many questions about the status of the member
> > > registration records contained in the database collected for the
> > > purpose of supporting the recent vote for five At Large Directors.
> > >
> > > This information was collected under a strict privacy rule of no
> > > commercial use, no spamming, and no disclosure to third parties.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208