On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 19:43, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote: > espresso@e-scape.net wrote: > > ><snip> > > > >Perhaps this will help to explain why I respectfully > >disagree with my fellow-Canadian, Sotiris, who seems > >to believe only those willing to pay $100 to have their > >identity notarized should be eligible to join a group > >protesting the lack of democracy and openness within > >ICANN. > > > Poppycock! I stated no such thing. Then, I think there was a misunderstanding about what you meant in these messages. http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0304/msg00309.html http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0304/msg00463.html It comes down to finessing terminology, I guess. Danny Younger participates, though he isn't a member. Most members don't participate. Then you have to wonder whether all members should vote or not, what exactly it is that membership gets you above and beyond your status as an At-Largean, etc. I. At-Largean A. Participant B. Member C. Participating Member Clearly, the benefits of the policies we pursue should cascade from [I]. Additionally, I think any [I] should be able to subscribe to the list or web forum. Only [B] and [C] should be able to vote. [B] and [C] should be verified, but I think we should hold off on implementing verification until after the current election. So, [A] just seems to be a list or forum member. In deference to our colleagues in less open countries, perhaps a special secret verification option could be researched? -s
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part