Re: [ga] court supervision, follow on article

[Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>]

At 05:52 PM 11.10.2006 '?.'  -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Oh, you mean the thing with the entire content relevant to what you 
> are asserting (ICANN immunity) is contained in one paragraph of two 
> sentences that simply states a conclusion without supporting

I am not saying that ICANN has immunity - you asume I said it. I just 
said (and Michael Froomking, who is a US lawyer, right?) confirmed 
that it doesn't seem a case for ICANN. You, and others, have 
different opinions. Well, we'll just wait and see who is right. I 
don't asume I am right, but I see you asume you are right.

> > > 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.
>
> No paradox - Section 5231(b) of the California Corporations Code -

As i wrote - I don't have the time now. But it's not what you are quoting.



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

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