Re: [ga] No Members?
"William X. Walsh" wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
> If the mechanism being discussed does in fact hold that the At Large
> members are statutory members, under the California law, that gives a
> clear and direct mechanism for the dismantling of ICANN's "Top down"
> structure that they have worked so hard to hide under an illusion of
> "bottom up" consensus.
> I think such an exercise would certainly be helpful. The ICANN board
> has shown that unless and until it is FORCED to reform or making
> appropriate changes, it will not do so. The only way to force ICANN
> to actually listen to the internet community, instead of it's
> corporate/IP and government puppetmasters, may be to bring it in front
> of a judge, and this provision provides the mechanism for doing so.
I seem to recall there is something called a declaratory judgemnt, which
can be applied for in California, both sides get to fully brief the issue
and then a judge tells them what their contract means legally. I don't
even think it has to hurt either of the parties it is more like a request
for definition. And I am reasonably certain one of the at large members
could bring it, filing fee under 200 and a three page form can handle it
almost all on line.
Maybe Karl should do it and end the debate once and for all.
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