DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

On 2001-04-03 14:53:23 -0700, William X. Walsh 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 and debated.

Just answer my question.  If the clear intent was that a board
resolution suffices, why does the law call for a SPECIFIC PROVISION

Thomas Roessler			    <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>