Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:40:21PM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > >In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
> > >without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of the
> > >Internet. This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws.
> > These two items demonstrate the pervasive tendency to debate about
> > theoretical issues that have no factual basis in ICANN legal documents.
> > As people claim to be serious participants, they should consider the
> > responsibility that participation carries, to be adequately educated about
> > the relevant fact, not theory.
> Generally speaking, your two last comments here are not only misguided
> but wrong. Policy is about theory.
I have no idea what you mean by that, or why you think it is important.
> The only factual basis that comes
> from "legal documents" (I suppose you mean this as documents which are
> not illegal) is the fact that the document exists.
"Legal document" is a common term meaning "document types that have
special significance in a legal context", like contracts, or documents
like birth or marriage certificates that are placed in a public record.
Anyway, you have veered quite far from my original statement:
"In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of
the Internet. This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws."
This is a fact. Moreover, officers and directors of a corporation
always have a fiduciary duty to the corporation, a duty that is defined
in laws concerning corporations.
The point is that the board has a fiduciary DUTY to look at the VRSN
proposals, regardless of what the DNSO says, and regardless of whether
"policy" is at issue. Like it or not, the corporate officers are the
ones who have responsibility for the corporation, not the DNSO.
> As people claim to be serious participants, they should be made aware
> that just because an oldtimer says something does not make it so. The
> GA needs to be more interested in what interested participants have to
> say and less on historical facts which impede progress.
Of course - that's the whole purpose of the GA -- to ignore facts ;-)
> The GA is not
> to be dominated by, technocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers or
> lobbyists. It is a General Assembly not any particular groups Assembly.
In fact, the GA is not dominated by technocrats, bureaucrats,
businessmen, lawyers, or lobbyists.
Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html