Re: [ga] court supervision, follow on article

[Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>]

At 03:35 PM 11.10.2006 '?.'  -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > 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.

Well, you believe wrong. There was even a link to the statement, 
which is on the ICANN's page.

> > 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.

Decisions? What decisions? On a situation which doesn't exist?

> 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.

There's some paradox here, but I don't have time to engage on that. 
Just think of the reaction on some of the votes.


Sincerely,
Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com

check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com