[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: ICANN and Auerbach ---

[todd glassey]

All - my response to Captain Teddy of the "USS Conspiracy:

Donald Eastlake is a very professional and quiet person to the most
part, and in several years of posting with, or in rebuttal where we
disagreed - DEE's points have always pretty much been on the money...
and that's what this one was about - the money.

More below -

----- Original Message -----
From: "t byfield" <tbyfield at panix.com>
To: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: ICANN and Auerbach ---


> dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Fri 08/02/02 at 08:25 PM -0700):
>
> > Perhaps you can explain what prompts you to re-post the letter from such
a
> > noted legal expert as Mr. Eastlake to this scholarly list?
>
> a desire to convince yacht club officials, agents provocateurs,
> and delusional windbags.

I would put it more as "sheer disgust" that ICANN would enlist legal help to
stop a Director from exercising their rights as a Director under California
Law.

It is my personal feeling that what ICANN is clearly afraid of is the
public's knowing how much money there is in ICANN and where it came from or
where it is going. But as to Karl's request, my feeling is that ICANN was
afraid that the could not stop a leak as to their internal finances, the
state of what was funded, and more importantly the history of the funding,
and that they (ICANN)  would only have marginal civil recourse against the
Director they exposed the financials to... so rather than take the chance
that Karl would expose them to the world - they told him to bugger-off.

However:

        A)    Point #1 -- In this Post-ENRON/WCOM/TYCO world where
apparently(1) the auditors themselves have been party to frauds, for any NPO
that operates in the Public Interest, this demand is totally reasonable.

More so, for the rest of us as customers that depend regularly on ICANN and
its registrars, it is reasonable that we also are exposed to the health of
the company and its internal politics. This is because so many companies are
failing and ICANN cant tell us to date what they would do if one of their
registrars or registries goes belly up. After all how many times can you
sell a domain name (unless WLS goes into effect and then you get to sell it
twice)?

To get ones arms around why this is disclosure so important, one has to
realize that ICANN is unlike any other corporation in the World, it is a
Non-Profit, that may be involved in any number of outrageous practices
including what it pays any of its staff members or how they are compensated
for their work for ICANN, and all of that MUST BE PUBLIC if this is a NPO
being operated in the Public's interest.And simply put, this ICANN is the
entity that is now refusing public audits or access to its books.

No other California Corporation would be allowed
that leeway and perhaps this should be addressed with a petition to the
State's Controller's offices and that of the State's Attorney General and
the Secretary of State jointly demanding that they force ICANN to produce
these types of information or revoke its corporate standing and issue a fine
for failure to comply with a State order.

Myself, I think that with ICANN, promoting itself as a NPO and a GLOBAL
TRUST PROVIDER(2), and as the only source of access to the "Global Internet
DNS Root",  I  would like to see a full disclosure as to where the money
went and is going so that we understand what in actuality 6$ per domain
really means. For instance how many instance of 6$/per this years are we
talking about? And as part of this, I, per se, am VERY INTERESTED in any
corporate contributions to ICANN, and what was obtained for them. This may
be ***the*** real issue after all if we are to find money funneled back into
ICANN from places like large "router companies" or registrars/registries...
or from others that have vested  financial interests in the Internet staying
as it is.

        B)    Point #2 -- Karl is a licensed practitioner of the Law in
California. That is to say that it is Karl Auerbach, Esq. and the concept
that the Squire Auerbach would endanger his legal standing with the Bar
Association of California or the National Bar on an "ethics matter" is
something that I believe he would not do.

For those of you not privy to the Ca. Bar Association's recent actions, the
California Bar is actively at this time performing a "hunt" for Lawyers they
have passed to the Bar that violate the ethics clauses of the Bar's rules of
engagement (so to speak) and this is something that most all California
Lawyers are aware of - What does this mean? Most Ca. Lawyers are running in
fear if they have any skeletons regarding their behaviors, so again (as an
associate to the Bar Association myself) I don't see this happening.

Todd Glassey

---------------
(1)   One has to use language that indicates that no convictions has
actually happened yet...

(2)   The resolving of a name is a trust process. The Registrar is stating
that this domain name belongs to this registered entity and that they have
gone through the registrar's process - so they are in fact a trust provider.





>
> ahoy, matey,
>
> "Cap'n Ted"
> _USS Conspiracy_
> Bermuda Triangle
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss