[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Membership qualification
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Membership qualification
- From: "Ron Sherwood" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:09:17 -0400
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- List-Help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
Good morning, @Largers:
I have followed the membership debate with some interest. The "Paid Up" reference is common language, but in my opinion should be replaced with "Member in Good Standing". Bye-Laws will determine the meaning of that term. My suggestion is that it is a member who has not been disbarred (see below) and who has annually (or bi-annually) confirmed membership by responding to an address confirmation / correction request. Response to such a message implies that messages are being read, and that the recipient is still interested enough in membership to respond. Any membership fee, should be earnestly requested, reasonably justified and regularly accounted for. But, it should be a donation and not a requirement.
Loss of membership should be for cause only and the causes should be set out in the by-laws. For example, abuse of membership (commercial use of @Large contacts or facilities).
On another issue: The debate over the ccTLD .nz concerns me. I am unsure why the vituperous attack on that registrar was not leveled at all ccTLDs who use second level domains to categorize domain registrations. The .uk TLD, for example, has .co.uk and similar sub-domains. If this is so terrible, why limit the attack to .nz? On the other hand why must such an attack be so vehement anyway?