Re: [ga] court supervision, follow on article
Veni Markovski wrote: At 01:05 PM 11.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
What California law allows is for you to rely, if you chose, on certain specialized advisors such as licensed attorneys and accountants. But you are not allowed to check your mind and simply follow the herd. It's John Jeffrey's job. He has responded, and I've forwarded the response. You did? I believe you sent a statement of your opinion and not the statement of ICANN's counsel. If you don't trust him, then you should do your job to make your case. Again, I'm not a director, you are. It is your job to make *independent* and *informed* decisions. And there is reason, as I have shown, to believe that ICANN's claims of immunity are overbroad. The fact that you don't even want to go out and get independent information on that is telling. I don't have reasons to not believe the staff. Again, one more time - California law does not allow you to simply believe "staff". The *ONLY* people you are allowed to rely upon are certain specialized people such as attorneys and accountants. For generalized stuff from "staff" you are legally obligated to take it with skepticism and to make your own independent judgments, based on your own independently gathered information, whether to accept what you are being told. Today's ICANN is not the one you had to sue to get documents Sheesh, that's not why I sued ICANN (and won). I sued (and won) not because I couldn't get documents - instead it was to get documents without having to sign ICANN management's unlawful non-disclosure as a precondition. And I do not see ICANN as any different now than it was then - the board members still seem emasculated and unwilling to do anything that actually looks like their own independent information gathering and independent thinking. ICANN's board seems most willing to allow staff to herd it around like catle and to moo loudly in agreement when staff says "sound like a cow". -karl--
|