2008年9月4日星期四
轉貼: "支持何沛德 捍衛I.T.界選民知情權"
宜家hkirc向提出疑問的何佩德採取法律行動,係完全助紂為虐的行為!
我係呢度呼顅各位有良知的網友:
1.支持何沛德 捍衛I.T.界選民知情權
2.要求hkirc切勿助紂為虐,立即撤消指控
3.抗議hkirc漠視公眾知情權,私底下與莫乃光簽訂保密協議,損害公眾利益;
4.要求hkirc公開回應莫乃光突然辭去hkirc董事的前因後果,切勿將莫乃光的個人利益置於公眾利益及知情權之上。
請各位網友及I.T.界選民勇敢地站出來,對壓制言論自由/莫視選民知情權的候選人說不!
請各位網友加入"支持何沛德 捍衛I.T.界選民知情權" facebook群組
2008年8月28日星期四
轉貼:莫乃光禁制消息發放!嚴重妨礙資訊自由
我這個說法是完全有根據的。8月15日有線電視論壇上,
HKIRC的法律顧問意見如何,我不得而知,但是我知道
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: "Charles Mok"
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:28:45 +0800
To: XXXXX
Subject: Regarding a leak of information from HKIRC
Dear Mr To,
Yesterday in a televised forum, Mr Samson Tam and Mr PT Ho (former HKIRC director) brought up some details of a confidential settlement between myself and HKIRC in 2004, that i would consider a serious breach of confidentiality and trust between myself and hkirc. i must bring this to your attention and ask you to look into and deal with the matter urgently, both internally regarding this leak and externally issuing a public apology to me. this is a urgent matter and need the immediate attention of you and HKIRC because i have strong reasons to believe that Mr Tam and others will continue to use the leak information further and very soon. i reserve my right to further actions on this matter to protect my rights.
Thanks you for your attention.
轉貼:莫乃光講一套做一套,做人好有問題!
2008年8月22日星期五
代貼:04年HKIRC法律顧問意見
莫乃光在上星期的有線電視論壇中,對於別人對他2004年HKI
根據我所知道的資料,HKIRC當時為此徵詢的法律意見認為,
以下一段是當時HKIRC的法律顧問 Horvath & Giles (即現今HKIRC的法律顧問)的書面意見。 為了避免莫乃光四處追查我的消息來源,我在此只能夠覆述檔內容而
各位IT科技界的選民,請擦亮眼睛,
HORVATH & GILES
21st April 2004
Nicholas B. Horvath
Under section 9 of the Protection of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201), XXXXX and XXXXX have clearly obtained an advantage from (COMPANY B) regardless of (1) the nature of the advantage; (2) whether or not (COMPANY B) would become the administrator of the “.asia” domain name; or (3) whether XXXX and XXXXX would ultimately achieve what they intended to achieve.
A director owes fiduciary duties to the company of which he is a director. Briefly, these duties include a duty of good faith including two aspects as follows:
(1) each director is a fiduciary with respect of his company and must act bona fide in what he considers to be in the interests of the company;
(2) he must not place himself in a position where there is a conflict between his duties as a director and his own personal interests.
XXXXX and XXXXX as the members of the Board of Directors of (COMPAY A) have clearly breached their fiduciary duties owed to (COMPANY A) in establishing (COMPANY B) which is direct conflict with the interest of (COMPANY A). (COMPANY A) has set up a registry of Hong Kong domain names and the setting up of a registry for Asian domain names will be prejudicial to the interests of (COMPANY A). Further these acts were done without the consent (in advance) of the Board of Directors of (COMPANY A).
The two Mr. XXXXX have also breach their duties in respect of confidentiality as certain confidential information such as business strategy, financial position relating to (COMPANY A) would have been disclosed in the course of establishing (COMPANY B). Although there is no contractual agreement between (COMPANY A) and its directors as regards the protection of confidential information and their duties as officers of the company, there are still common law duties imposed on all company officers.
As a prima facie, a crime appears to have been committed, the only available course of action is for (COMPANY A) to report to the ICAC for further investigation.
In view of the above, the we advise that there are presently three remedies available to (COMPANY A), as follows:
- that XXXXX and XXXXX should be asked to resign from the Broad of Directors of (COMPANY A). Failing which, (COMPANY A) will need to call an EGM to pass special resolution that XXXXX and XXXXX should be removed. The meeting should be conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in the company’s Articles of Association;
- that XXXXX and XXXXX should confirm under oath that they do not possess any confidential information relating to (COMPANY A) and that they will not use any confidential information that is the property of (COMPANY A); and
- that (COMPANY B) to sign an undertaking confirming that they will not use or refer to or pass or in any way deal with any confidential information that is the property of (COMPANY A). (COMPANY B) should also deliver up any documents, materials and things that are confidential to (COMPANY A).
莫乃光威脅言論自由
莫乃光呢個回應好有問題:
1.人地問資訊保安,佢答非所問,用網絡評論候選人同你公司內的保密資料被盜完全係兩碼子事
2008年8月21日星期四
Charles mok回應.HK帶出0既疑慮
1. Charles話自己因為對公司管治不滿所以離開, 我唔知佢點解會係間公司度(可能係被推選), 但發現公司有問題, 唔係去面對去解決, 而係一走了之, 咁係負責任0既做法咩?
即使Charles話自己之後同間公司保持良好關係,咁可以說明D咩呢?唔通間公司會拒絕同你來往咩!
2. Charles警告Samson就呢件事質詢可能要面對法律後因(可能Charles或者相關0既機構會告Samson啦), 但係選舉呢個重要時段, Samson都敢冒住俾人告誹謗0既危險拿件事出來問, 相信並非空穴來風, 被追問落去可能會影響Charles 0既選情!
但Charles由頭到尾都沒講到到底因咩事離開果兩間公司, 似係避重就輕!
如果上面個推論成立, 我諗Charles 真係要同我地班選民交代下到底件事係咩.
3. Charles話:"當時無論有咩法律諮詢, 我0既立場都係話我沒任何利益衝突" "當時我0既律師話俾我聽我係沒利益衝突0既"
Charles承認左當時間公司有就佢個問題拿法律意見, 不過佢自己(同埋佢個法律顧問)就話沒任何利益衝突,
但係HKIRC律師0既見呢?係咪都係認為沒任何利益衝突?我好有興趣知!
4. Charles話自己同過往幾任主席覺得HKIRC有問題,
佢地係董事, 又做過主席, 如果間公司有問題, 問題出係邊個主責0既時候呢?係咪佢地做主席時呢?到底邊個要為管治問題負責呢?係走0既人定係留係度0既人呢?
Charles咁講對班當時共事的人係一個嚴勵0既指責
5.Charles不斷話沒任何金錢關係,所以不存在任何利益衝突!
有沒人可以話我知咩係利益衝突? 唔涉及錢就係沒利益衝突?
6. Charles話當時.asia同.hk有D誤會,
我真係我想知到底係咩誤會搞到hkirc要去諮詢法律意見
7. Charles不斷強調自己沒因件事俾人告, 所以件事唔值得再討論或提起
其實沒俾人告係咪就代表件事沒0野呢? 我諗有三種情況
I)真係沒0野
II)和解左, 可能辭左兩間公司的職務就算啦
III)息事寧人, 唔想將件事搞大
如果係情況(I), 咁講出來都等我地得個知字就算啦, 唔使我地亂咁諗
如果係情況(II) 或(III), 咁我地就要問到底啦!
8. Charles話:"香港非常少人明白互聯網管治問題, 亦都很少人真真正正明白到國際域名0既整個行業生態....即使入.HK做董事0既呢班人都唔了解.....所以連埋我四人,包括當時及前任會長辭職"
聽完Charles呢話我之後真係唔知點講好, 希望Charles所指的"呢班人"唔包括佢自己啦, 如果唔係我真係唔知除左佢之外香港仲有沒人"明白到國際域名0既整個行業生態"!
綜合上列各點, 我建議Charles或者HKIRC應該出來澄清, 到時清者自清, 等我地可以睇得清, 投票都投得放心明白D啦!
參考資料:
睇Charles VS Samson @i-cable 莫乃光涉嫌有利益衝突面有難色
04年報導 傳莫乃光辭域名註冊董事 [Sing Pao] 2004-05-17 B02 經濟 < 轉貼>
2008年8月19日星期二
開版有話說,有話說開版
本來我都係三餐足就唔理其他事的人, 對政治亦不甚了了
但近日見到自己個界別(哈,我有兩票架,一票直選,一票係資訊科技界)的候選人莫乃光同埋譚偉豪竟然同日出現係我辦公室附近派單張, 心諗連功能組別都要搞到好似直選咁通街派單張都幾慘喎, 一定係因為競爭激烈先令到佢地兩位尊貴0既候選人要四圍走拿票啦!
上網摷多D料睇下因咩事搞到咁激......
唔係尤是可, 一睇真係嘔血!
感謝網絡提供0既便利,我上youtube一打佢地個名就摷到佢地係I-CABLE辯論0既片段
.
.
.
唉...原來我地0既候選人不外如是,
尤其係標榜敢言、承擔、前瞻0既莫乃光迴避質詢D說辭更令我愈睇愈糊塗!!!!
本來諗住提出來同大家探討下,但係去香港討論區度睇下D討論, 我就當堂打消左呢個念頭,
事關參與討論0既網友三句唔埋兩句就扣帽子, 我諗如果我同舊ID出POST, 唔使幾個就要換個新ID呢!
所以我開左呢個新BLOGGER, 叫做自己地頭方便講0野, 又唔使擔心俾人秋後算帳(我最擔心呢點, 好人好姐俾人無理取鬧, 真係沒咩必要)
我自己會堅持擺事實講道理的態度, 亦都歡迎各方友好過來一齊討論下!
(嘩!原來就三點啦, 抖陣先再睇下有沒精神返來寫 觀戰0既感想及疑問!)