| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Why Did ICANN Do It?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 24 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
well, I think KPMG did the formal audit and corresponding opinion, didn't they? As far as financial condition is concerned, I do not think it is uncommon for a director to rely upon an independent audit opinion when available. I know it is not fashionable to say this in light of AA but is indeed still the reality. Auditors do ask questions. So, if there is anything to find here, I am not so sure it will have to do with the direct finances of the corporation. There is always certain subjective interpretations such how much was spent for this or that but unlikely, in my opinion, anything that is going to smell really bad in this regard. Given this assumption holds, what else is there to look at towards finding something that smells really bad? In other words, my guess is that there is something else that Karl feels that, at the very least, needs to be looked at "unabated".
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re: More Questions Than Answers
by RFassett
|
|
|
|
|
OK, who are you and what have you done with the real Ray Fassett? :) Yes, KPMG has done the audits and opinions. Honest auditors can miss things, so can dishonest ones. I don't expect there's any smoking guns to be found, and if there were, they've gone up in smoke by now. But I think you have to ask yourself not just why they stonewalled the Cavebear, but why the staff and outside consultants are so intent to ensure that directors in general are kept in the dark and used as a rubber stamp, to ensure there can be no elections, to ensure they are surrounded by bobblehead dolls. Is it just for job security? Well, if so, they're doing a helluva bad job so that is reason enough to be concerned. If they can't do anything else right, perhaps their accounting also leaves something to be desired. But perhaps it goes further, perhaps the staff and outside consultants have a hidden agenda. If so, a look at the books, while it may not reveal fraud or corruption, could help to expose that agenda. All I know is that they're fighting tooth and nail to keep ICANN in their iron grip and continually increase their power. That smells to me like more than just a concern for job security. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
