ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Cavebear meets stonewall | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 36 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Wednesday December 05 2001, @05:54AM (#3932)

    Karl Auerbach should resign.

    Apparently some of the other ICANN Board
    members have not resigned, but just fail to
    participate. They are placeholders. It does
    not seem to be wise for Karl to be a placeholder.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Wednesday December 05 2001, @06:51AM (#3934)
    What a wus, a long letter to justify why he has done nothing but clang his pots and pans.

    "intent to preventing me"
    "big Swords of Damocleas"
    "I still have not been allowed"
    "I can't"

    You failed because you acted like an asshole to your peers not because of others around you.

    What about taking a deeper look into yourself why you got nothing done.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Wednesday December 05 2001, @07:18AM (#3935)

    Why does Karl send a letter to Dave Farber ?

    Is that because Dave Farber helped to create ICANN ?

    Why doesn't Karl participate in ALL of the various
    ICANN mailing lists ? Is he too good for that ?

    In fact, why do people disappear once they are
    elected to be an ICANN Director ? Some of the
    ICANN Directors used to be very vocal on the
    mail lists. Why do they now mostly meet in their
    face-to-face cliques ?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Wednesday December 05 2001, @02:58PM (#3939)
    >Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:01:31 -0800
    >To: David Farber , "Declan McUllough"
    >From: "M. Stuart Lynn"
    >Subject: Response to Karl Auerbach's note
    >
    >The postings from Karl Auerbach to your lists regarding access to records
    >were forwarded to me. I thought each of you might be interested in my
    >response below. Feel free to post or not, of course, as you see fit.
    >
    >Many thanks
    >Stuart
    >
    >_______
    >
    >Karl is free to examine ICANN records any time he is ready to comply with
    >established procedures that apply to him and any other Director -- in
    >complete accordance with California law. Karl is not being singled out.
    >Among other reasonable provisions, these procedures are designed to
    >protect confidential records, such as personnel files. Karl wishes to set
    >himself above the direct or delegated authority of the ICANN Board of
    >Directors, in declaring himself as the sole determinant of what is
    >confidential and what is not. That is not his prerogative according to
    >California law or ICANN bylaws.
    >
    >The procedures to which he objects were endorsed by the Audit Committee of
    >the ICANN Board, to whom the Board has delegated responsibility for this
    >general area. He is always welcome to take his objections to the full
    >Board should he wish. So far, he has not chosen to do so.
    >--
    >
    >__________________
    >Stuart Lynn
    >President and CEO
    >ICANN
    >4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
    >Marina del Rey, CA 90292
    >Tel: 310-823-9358
    >Fax: 310-823-8649
    >Email: lynn@icann.org

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    M. Stuart Lynn's response
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Wednesday December 05 2001, @08:21PM (#3942)
    User #2810 Info
    I reformatted Mr. Lynn's letter, already provided by Anon, to respond to it. I reprint it in its entirety here, my attempt at deconstruction follows. -g

    Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:01:31 -0800
    To: David Farber , "Declan McUllough" [sic]
    From: "M. Stuart Lynn"
    Subject: Response to Karl Auerbach's note

    The postings from Karl Auerbach to your lists regarding access to records were forwarded to me. I thought each of you might be interested in my response below. Feel free to post or not, of course, as you see fit.

    Many thanks
    Stuart

    _______

    Karl is free to examine ICANN records any time he is ready to comply with established procedures that apply to him and any other Director -- in complete accordance with California law. Karl is not being singled out.

    Among other reasonable provisions, these procedures are designed to protect confidential records, such as personnel files. Karl wishes to set himself above the direct or delegated authority of the ICANN Board of Directors, in declaring himself as the sole determinant of what is confidential and what is not. That is not his prerogative according to California law or ICANN bylaws.

    The procedures to which he objects were endorsed by the Audit Committee of the ICANN Board, to whom the Board has delegated responsibility for this general area. He is always welcome to take his objections to the full Board should he wish. So far, he has not chosen to do so.
    --

    __________________
    Stuart Lynn
    President and CEO
    ICANN
    4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
    Marina del Rey, CA 90292
    Tel: 310-823-9358
    Fax: 310-823-8649
    Email: lynn@icann.org

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    More from politechbot
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday December 06 2001, @04:57AM (#3944)
    User #2810 Info
    here. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by PMaggs (p-maggs @ uiuc . edu) on Thursday December 06 2001, @05:23AM (#3945)
    User #3061 Info
    The following quote is from a California case (45 Cal.Rptr.2d 1) about a different, but identically worded ("absolute right to inspect") section of the California Corporations Code:

    " Moreover, because the right of inspection under Corporations Code section 8334 has no exceptions, a director's motive for requesting an inspection is irrelevant. No reported decisions construe Corporations Code section 8334, but cases involving virtually identical provisions elsewhere in the Corporations Code conclude motive is irrelevant. For example, Valtz v. Penta Investment Corp. (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 803, 188 Cal.Rptr. 922 concerned the "absolute right" under Corporations Code section 1600 of any shareholder with more than five percent of a company's stock to examine the shareholder list. The corporation contended a shareholder's inspection request was prompted by his desire to form a competing enterprise and refused the demand, asserting an unclean hands defense. (Id. at p. 806, 188 Cal.Rptr. 922.) Rejecting the argument, the Court of Appeal declared, "The California Legislature chose to allow inspection without any restriction based on the shareholder's purpose and we cannot impose such a restriction via the unclean hands doctrine." (Id. at p. 810, 188 Cal.Rptr. 922.)
    True, Valtz involved a shareholder rather than a director. But a director has a stronger case for unqualified inspection rights than a shareholder. A director is a fiduciary charged with running the corporation in an informed manner. (National Automobile and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Payne (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 403, 412-413, 67 Cal.Rptr. 784.) Because a director, unlike a shareholder, is potentially liable for failure to exercise appropriate oversight, an unconditional right to inspect is essential. (Hoiles v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201, 204 Cal.Rptr. 111; see also 1A Ballantine & Sterling, Cal. Corporation Law (4th ed.1995) § 272.02 at p. 22 ["A director must be familiar with the affairs of the corporation in order to perform his duties and the absolute right of inspection is to assist him in performing (those) duties in an intelligent and fully informed manner."].)
    Also, in light of a director's potential exposure, the denial of unconditional access to corporate books and records constitutes poor policy: Well qualified individuals might decline to serve with something less than absolute inspection rights. (Cf. Gould v. American Hawaiian Steamship Co. (D.Del.1972) 351 F.Supp. 853, 859.) As this case illustrates, to allow defenses based on a director's alleged motive would in many cases result in the right to inspect being buried in litigation before it could ever be exercised, good motive or bad.
    Nor does a director's unfettered access to corporate books and records leave the corporation unprotected. Any number of tort theories may be used to redress a misuse of information gleaned via an improperly motivated inspection. (Hoiles v. Superior Court, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p.
    1201, 204 Cal.Rptr. 111.) Damages for misapplication of corporate information, rather than a threshold rejection of a director's inspection rights, is the appropriate remedy. [FN2] (Ibid.)
    45 Cal.Rptr.2d 1
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Thursday December 06 2001, @06:45AM (#3946)

    The IRS laws require certain public disclosure
    for Non-Profit Companies. ICANN will no doubt
    attempt to re-write those Federal laws.

    ICANN is nothing but a huge legal loop-hole game
    for Joe Sims and his buddy Louis Touton. They
    are raking in tons of money, laughing all the way
    to the bank, thumbing their noses at society,
    and making a fool of people like Karl.

    The Registries and the Registrars of course will
    support this forever. Legally, they should be
    Franchisees. ICANN has of course found another
    legal loop-hole in the Franchise laws, by using
    the "Accredidation" trick. Meanwhile, the U.S.
    Federal Trade Commission sits on their hands.

    Any other company would be hounded by the
    DOJ, FTC and the IRS, not ICANN, they rewrite
    the laws, and laugh all the way to the bank.
    What is amazing is that lawyers call this skillfull.
    Lawyers look on in amazement, at the brass balls
    that ICANN is willing to showcase.

    The average person looks on and says, "business
    as usual". It is a very sad situation. Nothing can
    be done, when you have so many people willing
    to be unethical. Civil society ceases to exist.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Thursday December 06 2001, @09:24AM (#3951)

    ARIN is very similar, the one big difference is
    that they do not allow anyone to get near
    their Board of Directors who is not 100%
    willing to hide all of the details of their deals.

    Look at the way the ARIN Board has hidden
    their out-sourced contract with Nominum.
    David Conrad is on the Board of ARIN and
    is one of the founders of Nominum.

    Who does ICANN invite to tell people how to
    run the DNS railroad ? why, none other than
    David Conrad who helps run the ARIN railroad.

    Nominum also runs the .INFO TLD, even though
    Nomimun was not mentioned in the detailed
    ICANN applications for TLDs. The applications
    apparently don't mean anything, when you
    have ICANN and ARIN insiders involved.

    It is all a big sham.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Thursday December 06 2001, @09:40AM (#3952)

    Ask any CPA and they will tell you that
    "Non Profit" companies are some of the largest
    scams in the United States.

    Sure, they have to do special IRS disclosures
    about how much employees are paid.

    Do they do those same disclosures about how
    much they pay "consultants".

    Look at ICANN, people thought they were rid
    of Mike Roberts. No way, he is now a highly
    paid consultant for his supporter Stuart Lynn.
    Mike Roberts has an expense account a
    mile long. Does he post meeting notes on all
    of the meetings he has ? Of course not. He is
    too busy making sure the .EDU TLD is in the
    hands of his cronies.

    ICANN does not want Karl or anyone to see where
    all the money goes. Furthermore, has anyone
    camped at the door of the ICANN offices ?
    What on Earth does the ICANN Staff do all day ?
    Does Stuart Lynn trouble himself to come in from
    his Palm Springs retirement palace to the ICANN
    office ? That sounds like a long drive, it must be
    better to telecommute.

    How often do ICANN Board members just
    "drop in" to the ICANN offices ?

    As for Joe Sims, he would probably come to the
    ICANN offices 24 hours a day if he could bill all
    those hours. Who audits what he does for the
    $250,000 monthly legal bills ?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Query to Karl
    by hofjes on Thursday December 06 2001, @12:52PM (#3956)
    User #60 Info
    Karl,

    Why don't you simply file a lawsuit? This is not a complicated issue requiring years of discovery, experts, and rooms full of documents.

    Additionally, because you are a director, the corporation will be required to indemnify you for the costs you incur in fulfilling your obligations as a director.

    This case requires a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction. After the injunction hearing, the case is basically over.

    Quick and dirty action with your attorneys' fees paid by ICANN.

    What are you waiting for?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Thursday December 06 2001, @03:00PM (#3964)

    It looks like the operatives have arrived.

    No one knows who pays them or what their agenda is.

    They masquerade as people who act foolish and
    make emotional statements. The public sees this
    as dissent. Over the years, it has become clear
    that these operatives are more than random
    humans. They enter the scene from left field,
    they have a lot of information, and they help to
    derail discussions by making it look like there is
    a discussion, when in fact, their contribution to
    the discussion is useless.

    It is not clear that even the ICANN Staff (or Karl)
    has any clue where the operatives come from.
    Most people guess it is the large, well-funded
    registries. Others guess government agencies.

    One thing for sure, ICANN is not a level playing
    field and never will be.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Saturday December 08 2001, @09:54AM (#3999)
    1

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Is ICANN a Membership Organization ?
    by Anonymous on Saturday December 08 2001, @10:19AM (#4000)
    Is ICANN a Membership Organization ?

    http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/form1023-4.htm

    IRS Form 1023 Page 4
    Item 11
    "Is the organization a membership organization?"
    .......[X] NO



    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The Story ICANN tells the IRS
    by Anonymous on Saturday December 08 2001, @10:28AM (#4001)
    http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/appendix-22.htm

    Appendix 22

    ICANN is not a California non-profit corporation with members. Its directors will be selected by four different pools of electors, representing the engineering community, the IP address registries, the users and providers of domain names, and the general user community. The latter will have some but not all of the attributes of membership, and will elect an At Large Council that will select nine of ICANN's 19 directors.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Saturday December 08 2001, @10:32AM (#4002)
    http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13mar01.htm

    RESOLVED [01.21] that the President is authorized to expend funds of the
    Corporation in support of the At Large Membership Study in an amount not to
    exceed US$ 450,000 (of which US$ 100,000 has already been authorized by the
    Board) on direction of the Chair of the At Large Membership Study Committee,
    with the expectation that the Chair and members of the At Large Membership
    Study Committee will continue to expend these funds carefully in support of
    the accomplishment of the charter of that Committee.


    http://www.bilderberg.org
    http://www.aspeninst.org/c&s/ipp.html
    http://www.bilderberg.org/2000pics.htm
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/Johnson.htm
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by Anonymous on Saturday December 08 2001, @12:12PM (#4006)
    To: declan@well.com, gnu@toad.com
    Subject: Re: FC: ICANN replies to board member's attempts to review
    financial info
    Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 20:48:40 -0800
    From: John Gilmore

    Declan, Karl Auerbach is right that California law gives him, as a
    company director, an "absolute right" to inspect the premises and
    properties and documents of the organization that he's a director of,
    at any time. I am currently a director of at least half a dozen
    organizations, have sat on the boards of many others, and take this
    right very seriously. Without it, I would have personal
    responsibility for the organization's deeds, without even the
    authority to determine what the organization is doing!

    Neither the board of the organization, nor its staff, can override
    California law by making up some "rules" for when or how directors are
    "allowed" to exercise this absolute right.

    Besides having many things to hide, though, Stuart Lynn and ICANN also
    have the benefit of terrible legal advice, that's been designed to
    keep the ICANN organization from ever being accountable to anyone.
    'Volunteer' lawyer Joe Sims, who collected big fees once ICANN started
    imposing costs on domain owners, set up this uncontrollable monster
    even while Jon Postel was alive. The original theory was to make sure
    that billionaire monopolist Network Solutions couldn't sue the "new
    IANA" into oblivion before it could turn monopoly into competition.
    But the US Government derailed that idea for years -- long enough for
    SAIC to sell Network Solutions and head for the hills. Sims and Lynn
    and the (unelected) majority on the ICANN board have seen fit to
    perpetuate the same structure -- including ongoing attempts to cut
    back the number of elected directors to a minority. It would look too
    bad to eliminate elected directors totally. But if they can be made a
    small minority that loses every vote, and given no individual power to
    oversee the organization, then they aren't a threat to the
    organization's ability to run its monopoly without public oversight.

    John

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    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