Re: [ICANN-EU] Disclosure of ICANN At Large Membership information

[Mike Roberts <roberts@icann.org>]

For those of you in Europe wondering what this particular bit of 
byplay is all about, it is a fact that under the non-profit 
corporation law of the State of California, a nonprofit corporation 
may elect to have members, or not to have members.

Following substantial public discussion in connection with the MAC 
report in Berlin in May, 1999, the Board made an affirmative, 
unanimous decision to remain a non-membership corporation.  It 
continues to hold that view at this time.  The interests of the 
multiple stakeholders in ICANN are set forth in the Bylaws, along 
with numerous protections for those interests, which include the 
Article III provisions on public notice and comment, reconsideration 
and independent review.

See the same citation I gave this morning, and other MAC documents 
for more background.

<http://www.icann.org/macberlin.htm>

ICANN has not, and will not, violate any laws.   The Board and the 
CEO get excellent legal advice, and they follow it.

Karl obviously has strongly held views about the type of At Large 
organization ICANN should have.  Others have theirs as well.  If 
there is merit in those views, they will surely gather support in 
coming months during the study process and subsequent decisions on 
the future of At Large membership.

- Mike

At 14:45 -0800 11/11/00, 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--