Previous messages: "An ICANN board member's yearlong quest to review financial info" http://www.politechbot.com/p-02874.html
"ICANN replies to board member's attempts to review financial info" http://www.politechbot.com/p-02884.html If ICANN would like to send along what it requires that its directors sign, I'd be happy to forward the documents (or any other response). -Declan ********** Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:53:35 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "M. Stuart Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: ICANN replies to board member's attempts to review financial info In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Karl is free to examine ICANN records any time he is ready to comply with > established procedures that apply to him and any other Director -- in > complete accordance with California law. It is my contention that ICANN's requirements are in clear contravention of California law. But how can those who are reading this decide whether that claim is true or not? ICANN's management has chosen to keep even the existance of those procedures secret from the public and to hide the full extent of those procedures from the Directors to whom they purport to apply. For instance, I would bet that ICANN's distant directors would be surprised to learn that ICANN's management demands that they travel across seas and deserts even to look at ICANN's telephone directory. And that Directors who make that journey will find the door barred until they sign an unseen confidentiality agreement that could contain any limitations that ICANN's management felt free to impose, even self-serving clauses designed by management to prevent the board from effectively overseeing that management's own actions. These are not simple time and place limitations that ICANN's management is attempting to impose. Instead these are limitations designed to eliminate the accountability of ICANN's management to the Board of Directors. Those requirements consist of several parts: - First there is a formalized procedure, never adopted by the board, but simply decreed by corporate management. (ICANN stonewalled me, deferring my access requests for ten months, while it wrote this procedure.) - Then there are several additional requirements that exist solely in e-mails sent to me by ICANN managment and never seen by other members of the ICANN board. - And finally there is a set of confidentiality agreements that I have never seen and yet ICANN's managment demands that I sign them. I challange ICANN to publish those procedures - *all* of those procedures. --karl-- ********** To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: ICANN replies to board member's attempts to review financial info Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 20:48:40 -0800 From: John Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Declan, Karl Auerbach is right that California law gives him, as a company director, an "absolute right" to inspect the premises and properties and documents of the organization that he's a director of, at any time. I am currently a director of at least half a dozen organizations, have sat on the boards of many others, and take this right very seriously. Without it, I would have personal responsibility for the organization's deeds, without even the authority to determine what the organization is doing! Neither the board of the organization, nor its staff, can override California law by making up some "rules" for when or how directors are "allowed" to exercise this absolute right. Besides having many things to hide, though, Stuart Lynn and ICANN also have the benefit of terrible legal advice, that's been designed to keep the ICANN organization from ever being accountable to anyone. 'Volunteer' lawyer Joe Sims, who collected big fees once ICANN started imposing costs on domain owners, set up this uncontrollable monster even while Jon Postel was alive. The original theory was to make sure that billionaire monopolist Network Solutions couldn't sue the "new IANA" into oblivion before it could turn monopoly into competition. But the US Government derailed that idea for years -- long enough for SAIC to sell Network Solutions and head for the hills. Sims and Lynn and the (unelected) majority on the ICANN board have seen fit to perpetuate the same structure -- including ongoing attempts to cut back the number of elected directors to a minority. It would look too bad to eliminate elected directors totally. But if they can be made a small minority that loses every vote, and given no individual power to oversee the organization, then they aren't a threat to the organization's ability to run its monopoly without public oversight. John ********** [The below should be read from the bottom up. --Declan] >Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 18:25:53 -0500 >From: "Paul Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >entirely fair. I must say, if Auerbach is insisting he has the right to >go public with private corporate information, and that is the only >obstacle, he has nothing so far as I can see. An entity has the right to >decide about the privacy of its information. On the other hand, if there >were other restrictions, his best bet would be to call their bluff, agree >not to disclose TO THE PUBLIC (as opposed to other board members) without >their consent, subject of course to his right to go to court over a >particular piece of info, and then see if they still deny him access. > >Paul Alan Levy >Public Citizen Litigation Group >1600 - 20th Street, N.W. >Washington, D.C. 20009 >(202) 588-1000 >http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html > >>> David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/05/01 06:03PM >>> >I will wait for a reply before posting > >At 05:43 PM 12/5/2001 -0500, Paul Levy wrote: > >What ARE the restrictions, other than the confidentiality requirement for > >personnel records? I can certainly understand a company not wanting such > >matters revealed to the general public. > > > >Am I correct in assuming that the obligation of "confidentiality" still > >permits Auerbach to review information he discovers with other members of > >the board who are similarly bound to respect the confidentiality > >requirement? Or must Auerbach secure clearance before talking to other > >board members about what he finds? > > > >Paul Alan Levy > >Public Citizen Litigation Group > >1600 - 20th Street, N.W. > >Washington, D.C. 20009 > >(202) 588-1000 > >http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:40:09 -0800 To: "Paul Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: IP: Response to Karl Auerbach's note Dear Paul: Directors who access confidential ICANN records are of course encouraged to discuss them with other directors if they wish, provided that is done in such a way that preserves confidentiality. With regards Stuart ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
