[At-Large] CCWG Briefings - Presentation
karl at cavebear.com
Sat Feb 27 01:07:49 UTC 2016
On 2/26/16 4:42 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> On 27 February 2016 at 01:01, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com
> <mailto:karl at cavebear.com>> wrote:
> In California the memberless approach is intended for use by
> things like theatre companies that tend to reflect the artistic
> direction of a director.
> hank you for making my point
> that ICANN should not be incorporated in a jurisdiction where such
> loopholes exist.
Loophole? Another word is "option". One word is pejorative, one is
descriptive. But beyond that, is there really a difference?
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?
The existence of options, or "loopholes", is pretty much a universal
That's what makes this current proposal such a fantasy - it is based on
an awful lot of hypothetical, hopeful, or imagined conjecture.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large