<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/26/16 4:42 PM, Evan Leibovitch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh04GUypRnyPpNxJvowtBp_wbQjQrJNr0AfMvKUmQydACw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">On 27 February 2016 at 01:01, Karl
Auerbach <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:karl@cavebear.com" target="_blank">karl@cavebear.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> In California the
memberless approach is intended for use by things like
theatre companies that tend to reflect the artistic
direction of a director.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet
ms',sans-serif;display:inline">T</div>
hank you for making my point
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'trebuchet
ms',sans-serif;display:inline">;</div>
that ICANN should not be incorporated in a jurisdiction
where such loopholes exist.</span><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Loophole? Another word is "option". One word is pejorative, one
is descriptive. But beyond that, is there really a difference?<br>
<br>
Have you counted the number of structural variations that exist
under Swiss law .. a quick search indicates at least ten forms for
non-profit organizations under Swiss Federal law plus other forms
under Canton law. Are those options or are they loopholes?<br>
<br>
The existence of options, or "loopholes", is pretty much a universal
constant.<br>
<br>
That's what makes this current proposal such a fantasy - it is based
on an awful lot of hypothetical, hopeful, or imagined conjecture.<br>
<br>
This proposal is tickling legal dynamite. Besides risking ICANN's
viability as a corporate form it also raises concerns in those who
hold contracts worth quite literally $billions a year. If one is
one of the holders of one of those contracts if the other side
(ICANN) undertakes risks that could upset the rights, duties,
enforceability - the revenue stream - of those contracts, then they
one might not be surprised if they legally intervene.<br>
<br>
--karl--<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>