Re: [ga] Comments on ICANN Reform Recommendations

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 02:25:13AM -0700, Sandy Harris wrote:
> 
> I think the bottom line is that ICANN is a "public benefit" corporation.
> Without a pausible plan to ensure that the public interest is adequately
> respresented, it loses all legitimacy.

The legitimacy of a public benefit corporation does not in any way 
whatsoever depend on any form of representation of the public; a
public benefit corporation is by definition a *private* entity that 
gets a particular tax status.  It has absolutely no obligation under 
the law to involve the public in its management or in any of its 
decision-making processes.  

The way it works, basically, is that the directors and officers decide
what the corporation does; and the state decides whether those
activities are worthy of special tax status.  Under normal 
circumstances the state has absolutely nothing else to do with it, and 
neither does the general public.

That is, public representation is absolutely not necessary for ICANN to 
function as a completely legitimate public benefit corp, just like 
thousands and thousands of other corporations.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html