[atlarge-discuss] Membership

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

As we look forward toward the prospect of bylaws and a Charter, I think its 
time that we had a real discussion on who is and who is not an At-Large 
member.  We are generally agreed that membership in the At-Large is open to 
both organizations and individuals... but does that mean, for example, that 
Tucows or NeuStar are entitled to be an At-Large member?  How about Roger 
Cochetti, the policy advisor for VeriSign... is he entitled to be an At-Large 
member?  What about the Business Constituency?  Is it entitled to call itself 
a member of the At-Large?  What about individual active BC members... can 
they simultaneously be considered to be At-Large members?  

The question is important because, in my mind, the At-Large was never 
designed to be a vehicle to accommodate everyone -- instead, as per the 
"Principles of the At-Large Membership" as first enumerated by the Membership 
Advisory Committee, "At-Large membership should primarily represent those 
individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting 
Organizations (SOs)".    

Yet within this icannatlarge.com organization we have a large complement of 
members that are "already" represented within the Supporting Organizations -- 
several panelists belong to the NCDNHC, and the proposed webmaster, among 
others, is a member of the BC.   Do these people have a right to call 
themselves members of the At-Large if they already have representation 
vis-a-vis the Supporting Organizations?  Do you consider Amadeu Abril i Abril 
to be an At-Large member?  He's a reigning director on the Board of ICANN 
elected by the DNSO who claims to be a member of icannatlarge.com.  By my 
definition, none of these people are members of the At-Large (and that 
includes Hans Klein and Jamie Love of the NCDNHC) as all of them already have 
representation within the SOs -- the At-Large is supposed to be the unique 
home for those without such representation.  

Even ICANN recognizes the fact that if you are a member of one constituency, 
you shouldn't simultaneously be a member of another consituency... this was 
made crystal clear in the proposed bylaws:  "No person or entity that is an 
active member of any one Constituency shall be a member of any other 
Constituency". 

Perhaps one of the reasons that we don't yet have bylaws for this group is 
that many in the current leadership know that by any sensible definition they 
would be excluded from membership in the very organization they now lead.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de