Re: [ga] Comments on ICANN Reform Recommendations

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

> Dear Kent,
> US legalities are of no interest here.

Please don't make the assumption that the writer in question was making
anything that even distantly approximates an accurate statement about the
obligations of a California public-benefit corporation (or US Federal
tax-exempt organization.)

(Although one can have expertise in matters of California law without
having a license to practice, the two often go hand-in-hand.  You can
check someone's credentials to practice law in California by going to
http://www.calsb.org/mm/sbmbrshp.htm )

Thick volumes have been written on these matters.  As a general
proposition public-benefit bodies are not divorced from the public whose
benefit they are formed to serve.

And you will also find that California is not some kind of unique haven
for pseudo public-benefit bodies.  Sure, I'm biased in favor of California
- I'm a native Californian - but even if I do say so myself, the legal
regime here is based on many of the same notions of corporate forms found
in other states of the US and other nations of the world.

One of my concerns, and one I expressed during the first board "retreat",
was that these ICANN r"evolution" proposals are so radical that they
vitiate the understandings that gave rise to ICANN's California
public-benefit and US Federal tax exempt status and thus could lead to
either an invalidation of those privileged positions or require, at least
in the latter case, approval from the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or
a requalification.

		--karl--


--
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