Re: [ga] Auerbach vs. ICANN update
On 17:19 19/04/02, Kristy McKee said:
>For those of you who are interested in the legal pursuit of justice by
>Karl Auerbach, here is the response from the possible criminals at ICANN:
>There is nothing surprising about their response. A surprise would have
>been an apology to Karl, etc. and permitting him to exercise his rights as
I did not read Karls position. Reading in detail Lynn's response I have odd
1. I understand that the Californian law makes an absolute right (and then
I suspect a duty) for the Directors to review the books. Yet NONE in his
Directors ever did. Lynn writes them as a President and Davidson inspeted a
small part of them at a given date, but not as a BoD Member.
I read this as a general fault of the BoD Members.
2. I understand that the ICANN can have rules to protect its documents. But
that since no Director had attempted to review them, the BoD nor the ad-hoc
committe had ever draft them. Because of the request of Karl they drafted
one "ad hominem". Then they discovered it was not "ad hominem" enough and
added to it when Karl accepted to use it.
3. I understand that the BoD is deemed to have approved a procedure when it
has been circulated and not voted against. Diverses other mentions lead to
think that Lynn and Touton are the references of the BoD rather than the
other way around: on a delegated controvereted issue of importance to every
Director they never even asked the BoD. The only response they propose is
"try it the way we designed them to block you, if you are not happy ask the
BoD who will ask us, and then go to courts, but we consider that you are
not a law abiding person because you say we might not respect the law". As
everybody knows that the process will take enough time for Karl not to be a
member of the BoD any more, it looks like a very opaque and uncooperative
attitude which should rise supicions.
As if one prefered to violate the law on what may appear as a small
violation than to see enlighted larger violations?
4. I understand what is mainly opposed to Karl is that he wants to "clean"
the ICANN situation, that he has been elected to that end, that he wants
that his successors and BoD fellows to be elected and that he does not
agree that as an elected person for 2 years he may serve as an alibi for 4
Directors, selected for 3 months more than 4 years ago, to stay for ever.
Since Roberst called on a commission to present a clean sheet study on the
way to reorganize the ICANN and to elect the BoD Members, that Lynn has
publicly produced an analysis on the State of the ICANN going much farther
that Karl and called for the Governments to [s]elect Karl's successors, one
can understand that the only disagreements between Karl and Lynn are [from
Lynns position reading] :
[I note that all the above has absolutely no interest for non ICANNers and
non US taxpayers, but that these conclusions are of international interest]:
- Lynn is entitled to say now that after one year of his own management
ICANN goes to its doom, but that Karl was not in a position to tell the
same under Mike Roberts' management.
- the [s]election of @large Directors should not be by the Internet
Participants but by the Govs : so Karl is a "traitor" to the ICANNs
interests when he proposes that the 550.000.000 stake holders having
invested hundreds of thousands of milliards of dollars in the Internet
adventure, be represented directly when Lynn suggest them to be represented
by Govs also representing citizens who have not invested in the Internet
and that Govs show no interest in Lynns proposition as such.
- the Govs delegated BoD Members, as proposed by Lynn, would be subject to
the same restrictions as Karl when they want to review the ICANN books. No
opinion is disclosed about the response given to the Gobvs who would like
to inspect the ICANN books the same way as Karl, before being selected.
These three non US layman's conclusions from the reading of Joe Sims, Louis
Toton and Stuart Lynn response are so strange that the only conclusion is
again "get real, guys!".
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