Re: [ga] No Members?
Dave Crocker wrote:
> >It does not sit right that ICANN has a grant for a Membership Program
> >Manager and computer software for members and has no members.
> And your difficulty with loose use of the term "membership" is exactly what?
As you know perfectly well, but have chosen not to acknowledge here, Auerbach
and others have raised the question of whether ICANN is obligated, by the
California law under which it is incorporated, to legally recognise that it
has a membership and that the membership has certain rights.
Rejecting that argument is certainly legitimate. ICANN's lawyers clearly
don't believe it, and several people (including you, as I recall) have argued
against it here.
> What is the productive point behind your pursuing your discomfort?
It is remarkably silly to pretend you don't understand that ICANN having a
"Membership Program" strengthens the Auerbach et al. argument considerably,
or that success of that argument would have substantial consequences.
What is the productive point behind dismissing an interesting question with
such a disingenuous comeback?
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html