[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ga] Re: Point of order

Roeland and all,

The offices of "Chair" and "Co-Chair" evidently do exist. See
http://www.dnso.org scroll about half way down, it is on the
left hand side of the middle of the page.  So Joe's point there
is valid.  As to whether they are "Legitimate" or not is a
matter of some serious doubt as we all know...

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> Hello Joe,
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of !Dr. Joe
> > Baptista
> > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 4:47 PM
> >
> > Your making assumptions in law which are incorrect.
> >
> > On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > As a point of order, the ONLY responsible parties, in the
> > DNSO.ORG are the
> > > Names Council. The last time I checked, neither Harald nor
> > Roberto are on
> > > the NC. Someone please correct me if my info is out of date.
> > There are no
> > > by-laws, anywhere, that even provide for a GA chair, much less
> > assign that
> > > entity a seat on the NC. Evenso, even the NC has marginal responsibility
> > > within ICANN, the ICANN BoD has made sure of that. The DNSO is a wholely
> > > operated entity of the ICANN, who has prime responsibility. Ergo and at
> > > best, Joe's bitch is with the NC if not the ICANN BoD (with the
> > > having primacy).
> >
> > Incorrect.  Regardless of the ICANN by-laws there is a clear line of
> > fiduciary responsibility.  Harald and Roberto are chairs selected by the
> > NC, and the NC is creature of ICANN.  Ultimately - yes - the ICANN BoD is
> > responsible and liable for what goes on here.  But the responsibilities
> > starts with the chair and alternate, then it lands on the NC and then it's
> > ICANN's fault.  Do you see how the responsibility tree works here Roland.
> IFF the ICANN *and* the NC recognize the post then you *may* be correct. But
> the liability and responsibility are diluted at least three levels. In
> addition, Harald and Roberto would have to act independent of both the ICANN
> and the DNSO NC in order to be liable for any action.
> > > In short, Harald can not be held accountable nor answerable, even if he
> > > wanted to be. If he was smarter, he'd duck and defer Joe to the
> > > and leave it at that.
> >
> > If he were smart he would ask the NC for a reply and if the NC had no idea
> > it would refer to the BoD at ICANN.  That's the correct method and follows
> > the pecking order of corporate responsibility.
> I think that you essentially said the same thing that I did. I said "duck"
> and you gave directions on how he should "duck". IOW, you're quibbling.
> > > The other issue is that you can't have it both ways; Harald is either
> > > legitimate GA chairman, or he is just another nobody. You can't hold him
> > > responsible for an office which you don't acknowlege. That is patently
> > > unfair in ANY court of ANY jurisdiction (saving the Napoleanic ones, of
> > > course). I am sure that Joe knows better, but just wants to
> > cause his usual
> > > disruption.
> >
> > I do not recognize either Robert or the alternate Harald as our
> > chairs.  They were not choosen by the GA.  That is a political
> > reality.  The legal reality is that they hold the office and must
> > effectively administer it - or there is legal liability which ultimately
> > resides with the Bod.
> I am not quite sure that the office is officially recognised. As stated
> before, there is no extant documentation supporting a GA chair. They hold a
> non-existant office. You have to first prove that the office exists. This
> may be difficult, especially if they know how to be properly uncooperative.
> I could think of at least three different ways to raise your life-is-hell
> factor, on this issue alone.
> > So don't accuse me of disruption.  At best I'm making a case that Harald
> > and Roberto are evasive - and that liability again as I 've said before
> > lands squarely on the ICANN BoD
> Why not? You've been determinedly disruptive since the day you came in here.
> You've even admitted it at one point. Why should I expect you to change now.
> Besides, if you were really going to sue then you'd have had the process
> papers on their way to the ICANN's registered agent a long time ago and
> wouldn't need to telegraph your move by asking for the registered agent
> address in public. In California, such information *is* a matter of public
> record, especially for a non-profit. If I were suing someone, the first that
> they would hear about it is when the process was served, preferably with
> less than 72 hours notice, in my home court (If'n you're going to fight ...
> do it right and NEVER give a sucker an even break [Marquis of
> Queensbury?!?!? Who dat?])
> All you would have to do is look up their corporate filings, which were even
> published on the Internet at one point. These filings, by law, have to list
> a point of process service, aka their registered agent. They HAVE to accept
> process service at that address, or their charter becomes at risk.
> MHSC pays fees to registered agents in three states. One of them happens to
> be in California. I just cut the check today. This is why I know, even
> privately-held corps have to do this. I can't believe that you don't know
> this.


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208