Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
Tuesday, April 03, 2001, 2:12:29 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Now, if the clear intent of the California law was that anyone who's
> asked by board resolution to vote for board seats is a member in the
> sense of the California code, why did the legislation put in that
> note on a SPECIFIC PROVISION?
How do you know the clear intent?
One of the things the courts look at in clear intent is not always the
literal interpretation of the words, but the statements by the
authors and others in the legislature when the law was being drafted
> I'm sorry, but I don't buy Karl's argument here, since it boils down
> to very little: His opinion on the INTENT of the California law, as
> opposed to it's WORDS.
The courts will tell you the strict wording is not as important as the
interpretation of the meaning and intent.
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