On 2/26/16 4:42 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 27 February 2016 at 01:01, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com <mailto:karl@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 constant. 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. --karl--