At 12:13 AM 7/25/99 -0700, you wrote:
Grossly plagiarizing a quick remark on another reply:
What he said.
Bill Lovell
>You obviously have never heard of a "derivative action". One share is all
>it takes to give standing to bring an action that can bring down the board
>of directors or officers who violate their duties.
>
>And in the right circumstances, the corporation can even end up footing
>the legal bill.
>
>One share is all it takes to attend a shareholders meeting.
>
>Zero shares is all that is needed to obtain the various SEC and state
>filings that NSI is required to file (and does file).
>
>Sure, more shares gets you more votes.
>
>But that's a lot better than the zero votes that individuals and
>non-commercials get in ICANN today.
>
>And the information you can get from NSI is a lot more information than is
>available from the opaque ICANN of today.
>
>ICANN publishing "donations" is not financial disclosure that even
>approximates what NSI has to publish. Compare the ICANN web page with
>NSI's 10K filing. That's one small page of disclosure for ICANN and one
>book for NSI.
>
>As for the MoU -- ICANN's first priority is living up to its organic
>documents. It is too bad that ICANN feels that it is more important to
>quash NSI than it is to establish an entity that is more a dictatorial
>Soviet with a life expectency beyond a few more months.
>
>But whether there is a MoU or not. ICANN is not publishing anything near
>the amount of information that NSI or any other publicly held for-profit
>corporation does, nor does it have external controls by shareholders
>or members that come even close to those given to shareholders.
>
>I can say "I told you so", and I will - I told you so -- In my Green Paper
>submission, I mentioned (as did many others) that the non-profit form that
>IANA proposed for ICANN was one that could easily lead to exactly what we
>have -- a closed, self-driven, non-responsive, opaque form of Internet
>Governance.
>
> --karl--
>
