[At-Large] CCWG Briefings - Presentation

Karl Auerbach 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.
> ​T​
> 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...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160226/8211ea9b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list