This statement quoted below, in which it is alleged that Karl Auerbach got only what he'd previously been offered, is flatly contradicted by the text of the judicial decision. It is, quite simply, utterly false. In fact, almost the reverse is true: what ICANN got is almost exactly what Karl offered them months ago (the only differences being he has to give 10 days notice to disclose instead of 7, and some documents must be inspected on the premises). The judge stated that in several material respects, what ICANN sought violated California law. See the text of the decision for yourself at http://cryptome.org/auerbach-icann.htm See also http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=883 for a subsequent development. One does not have to be a lawyer to understand what the following means: the court said ICANN's position "violates both section 6334 and Bylaws Article V, Section 21 because it deprives Auerbach of the inspection rights he has under law and imposes such unreasonable requirements as having to sign a confidentiality agreement and having to pursue burdensome review in any effort to enforce his inspection rights". A few choice quotes from the court decision (note, Respondent == ICANN and the "Inspection Procedures" were ICANN's attempt to restrict a director's access to info): [A] "Respondent contends that inspection rights of directors may be restricted by corporate inspection procedures and cites Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowners Ass'n (1995) 37 Cal.Ap.4th and Havlicek v. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1844 in support of its position. Neither section 6334 nor section 6336(a) provide for or permit a corporation to impose restrictive conditions on directors' inspection rights and burdensome review when such rights are denied." [B] "Having considered the applicable law and the undisputed facts presented herein, the court concludes that paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 of the Inspection Procedures conflict with section 6334 and Art. V, §21 of the Bylaws by unreasonably restricting directors' access to corporate records and depriving directors of inspection rights afforded them by law. Furthermore, Lynn's 10/5/01 letter violates both section 6334 and Bylaws Article V, Section 21 because it deprives Auerbach of the inspection rights he has under law and imposes such unreasonable requirements as having to sign a confidentiality agreement and having to pursue burdensome review in any effort to enforce his inspection rights. Additionally, the Inspection Procedures here apparently have not even been adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors, but were promulgated by an ad hoc group of functionaries consisting of the Audit Committee, Louis Touton, Diane Schroeder, and Lynn (Auerbach Dec. Ex. 17, 18, 21). Based on the undisputed facts, there is no triable issue as to any material fact and Petitioner Auerbach is entitled to judgment as a matter of law granting his Petition for Writ of Mandate. " On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Dave Crocker wrote: [...] > > 2. Note that Karl won the suit, but lost the war. He is now subject to > the conditions that ICANN had originally wanted to apply for his > access. The only difference is that now Karl is under a court order to > conform to those rules. > -- Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's very hot here.<--