[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposal take 2

[Gregory Dillon]

citation-   I think its not my duty to find and report the complete
citation-   But the root code is
here<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=06001-07000&file=6330-6338>
I'd expect there is case law that describes this further, and I'm not deep
on this issue.

But the code section nearby, that may help understand this are
here<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=corp>
.
scroll to section 5000 with title

DIVISION 2.  NONPROFIT CORPORATION LAW



On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:

> Gregory Dillon wrote, On 2014-03-12 15:13:
> > I think not.  But the structure of the State laws \ recognize that the
> > communication and accountability goals furthered by allowing access to
> > membership list are to be balanced against privacy interests of those
> > involved who don't want their phone numbers and home addresses given out.
> >    And if a member said to the secretary, I want the membership list, in
> > order to  publicly dox it,  I believe the secretary could validly say,
> no,
> > I am not providing the list for that purpose.
>
> Could you please cite this?
>
> Otherwise the consensus item is moot as it can be achieved with do-ocracy.
>
> Note I didn't use the word "solved" in place of "achieved" as no one has
> answered Naomi's very relevant question, what problem are you trying to
> solve?
>
> --
> Rubin
> rubin at starset.net
>
>


-- 
Let's stay in touch.  Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140312/75494e3f/attachment-0003.html>