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

["JIM FLEMING" <jfleming@anet.com>]

From: Mike Roberts <roberts@icann.org>
"ICANN has not, and will not, violate any laws.   The Board and the
CEO get excellent legal advice, and they follow it."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Who is ICANN ?
Who are all of the people paid directly or indirectly via ICANN ?
How were the so-called, "Outside Advisors" selected ?
http://www.icann.org/tlds/report/report-appa-09nov00.htm
Were the so-called, "Outside Advisors" paid ?

Do all of the people paid by ICANN get legal advice from ICANN ?

Is the ICANN Board familiar with The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 ?
http://cyber.lp.findlaw.com/criminal/econ_esp.html
What protective measure steps has the ICANN Board taken under this Act ?

Is the ICANN Board familiar with the RICO laws in the U.S. ?
Have all ICANN communications with people been made public ?
Has ICANN conspired with anyone or any companies in private ?

How can you predict the future and claim that ICANN "will not" violate any
laws ?
Will ICANN have control over the 835 people meeting in Los Angeles ?
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/preregistration/attendees.asp

Why do you direct your comments to Europe ?
What were ICANN Board members doing in Europe last week ?
Do you think that leaving the country allows people to violate U.S. laws ?

BTW...What are the products or "services" that ICANN provides ?


Jim Fleming
http://Register.WEB.com



----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Roberts <roberts@icann.org>
To: <icann-europe@fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Disclosure of ICANN At Large Membership information


> 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--
>