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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    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 ]
    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 Muhhk on Wednesday December 05 2001, @06:28AM (#3933)
    User #3085 Info
    Depends on whether it is easier to change from without or from within. I would suggest the only way ICANN is going to change is from within, unless the US government does something drastic (or ICANN becomes redundant due to the spread of alternative roots, "Internet Keynames" or even the ccTLDs going nuclear).
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by eric (eric@godbless.info) on Thursday December 06 2001, @01:44PM (#3958)
    User #2784 Info
    You post anonymously and so I call you a coward.

    Do you do more than he who you criticize?

    We have a duty to accept, move to alter or leave. You Mr. anonymous do nothing but obstruct.

    e
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by eric (eric@godbless.info) on Thursday December 06 2001, @01:50PM (#3960)
    User #2784 Info
    Your error is in speaking against a man who puts it on the line while you speak anonymously.

    Karl is speaking out for us dotcommoners is real time in virtual time and yet all you do is detract.

    You do not seem to have complaints against the BS members that do nothing.

    Why is that?
    e
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Cavebear meets stonewall
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Saturday December 08 2001, @12:45PM (#4007)
    User #2810 Info
    Mr. Auerbach responds to Mr. Roberts on the ALSC list. There's also a thread on the DNSO GA list.

    I was going to wait until after the archives are posted to report on the recent CIRA [administrators of the Canadian .ca ccTLD] General Meeting here, but will cover a few relevant points now. CIRA's meeting was webcast (in two languages, English and French, Canada is officially a bilingual country), and included a mechanism for online voting. Any .ca registrant is considered a voting general member of CIRA (the general membership also elects nine of the twelve CIRA BoD members, one of the remaining three is appointed to represent end-user interests). The general membership votes on the appointment of the external auditors.

    Compare and contrast. CIRA is only a year old yet somehow has managed a number of things that ICANN has spent a few years promising will happen real soon now. It was Mr. Roberts at the helm of ICANN for most of that time whilst it went in circles, floundered, and reversed course. The most polite thing that can be said is that he lacks credibility. Less politely, one could muse whether he knew exactly what he was doing. If not, he was in the wrong job. If so, who was he really working for? -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 13 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • 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