Re: [ga] No Members?
- To: Roeland Meyer <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [ga] No Members?
- From: Thomas Roessler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:03:42 +0200
- Cc: "William X. Walsh" <email@example.com>, Dave Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bruce James <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039DD7@condor.mhsc.com>; from email@example.com on Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 03:29:07PM -0700
- Mail-Followup-To: Roeland Meyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"William X. Walsh" <email@example.com>,Dave Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bruce James <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org
- References: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039DD7@condor.mhsc.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i
On 2001-04-04 15:29:07 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> There are still two questions even I as a European who is not
>> familiar with California law can ask after having read the
>> relevant material (which is entirely available from the ICANN
>> web site), and these two questions went largely unanswered:
> First mistake: Limiting yourself to the ICANN web-site. You
> therefore rely solely on their interpretation.
In fact, the ICANN site was the quickest reference for the relevant
article I had at hand.
> Instead, go to the source;
Thanks for the URL.
> search for "PART 3. NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATIONS"
Sorry, but since when is ICANN a Nonprofit Mutual Benefit
Corporation? The last time I looked it was a Nonprofit _Public_
Benefit Corporation, with part 2 of the law being applicable.
Also, please note that I was referring to Karl's argument at
<http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/platform.htm#full-members>. There, he
refers to 5510, 5511, 5513, 5613, 5710, 5812, 6321, 6330, 6333,
6338, 5150, 5222, 5512, 5167, and - as the basis of his argument why
at large members are statutory members - 5065. All these sections
are in part 2 of the law. Do you seriously claim that Karl was
entirely wrong - even about the part of the law which is applicable
to ICANN? Roeland, please don't be silly.
>> - Why does the California code specifically talk about a
>> SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES, when the
>> legislator's "clear intent" was that any BOARD RESOLUTION
>> which gives someone the opportunity to participate in an
>> election of board members should be sufficient?
>> Also, if that's the intent, why is 5056 (d)(2) there? (See
>> <20010404072237.A26611@songbird.com> from Kent Crispin for
> As mentioned earlier, to Kent, that's not even the appropriate
Karl says it is, and he agrees with ICANN staff on this point. To
me, this looks like strong evidence that it's indeed the right
Thomas Roessler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html