Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 2:00:34 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 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
> IN THE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES?
I think the court will have to decide that, because it certainly isn't
clear. And that's the court's job, to interpret the meaning of the
I've heard analysis that your reading is out of context, and that the
clauses are not exclusive of each other as you are presenting them.
That would mean that a specific provision is NOT mandated, only
provided for as one option as to how members may be recognized as
So like I said, this is a nice exercise, but like so many laws, until
it is tested with this specific set of circumstances, and a court
actually addresses those circumstances and how they fit with what the
law intended, what we have to say here is of little relevance.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html