On 2/26/16 4:42 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

On 27 February 2016 at 01:01, Karl Auerbach <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--