Re: [ga] No Members?

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@hi-tek.com>]

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Thomas,
> If the mechanism being discussed does in fact hold that the At Large
> members are statutory members, under the California law, that gives a
> clear and direct mechanism for the dismantling of ICANN's "Top down"
> structure that they have worked so hard to hide under an illusion of
> "bottom up" consensus.
>
> I think such an exercise would certainly be helpful.   The ICANN board
> has shown that unless and until it is FORCED to reform or making
> appropriate changes, it will not do so.  The only way to force ICANN
> to actually listen to the internet community, instead of it's
> corporate/IP and government puppetmasters, may be to bring it in front
> of a judge, and this provision provides the mechanism for doing so.
>

I seem to recall there is something called a declaratory judgemnt, which
can be applied for in California, both sides get to fully brief the issue
and then a judge tells them what their contract means legally. I don't
even think it has to hurt either of the parties it is more like a request
for definition. And I am reasonably certain one of the at large members
could bring it, filing fee under 200 and a three page form can handle it
almost all on line.

Maybe Karl should do it and end the debate once and for all.
IM(nl)HO.

--
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