Re: [atlarge-discuss] Membership

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 04:06:48 EDT, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

>David,
>
>Why should the door of the At-Large be open to a spokesman from VeriSign, or 
>for that matter to anyone who is already represented within the Supporting 
>Organizations?  

I don't think that one should lose ones right of individual
representation just because of say your job or other involvement.

On a more practical note where do you draw the line.  Just those on a
formal ICANN body?  How about those who are members of a constituency
but not active?  Or what if they work for an organisation that is a
member but they themselves do not get involved?  Should every member
of ISOC be barred because ISOC now runs .org?

I have faith that we can detect when people speak from vested
interests and weigh their opinions accordingly.  I also believe that
there will be enough non insiders involved in the at large to make the
votes of any insiders insignificant. 

>Roger Cochetti won't open his door to you, nor to any registry than is not 
>ICANN-accredited, so why should you be so magnanimous?  

Depends on who you want to claim to represent.  I quite like the idea
of the at large being open to any *individual* world-wide.  The gTLD
registry constituency only wants to represent ICANN registries.

>You would be better 
>off to recognize your adversaries and exclude them accordingly just as they 
>do, and that includes all of the members of the Business Constituency that 
>for years have acted to deny representation to individual domain name holders.

Call me naive but I don't think every other stakeholder in ICANN is an
adversary.  Certainly some are very hostile but not all are.  

>There are those that sympathize with the cause of the At-Large that are 
>members of the constituencies, but that shouldn't equate to making them de 
>facto members.  

Only if they (a) choose to join and (b) pay a fee if one is set.

If one is worried about hostile takeover then one could add to our
mission statement that the group is dedicated to having direct at
large representation on the ICANN Board and that membership is
dependent upon supporting that objective.  Then Joe Sims for example
could not join as he has publicly said he opposes such an objective.

>As I see it, the At-Large wasn't meant to be the home for the whole of the 
>public, but only for that portion of the public that wasn't otherwise 
>represented within ICANN.

I think that way though will make it even easier to marginalise.  It
will be seen as the non stakeholder organisation rather than an
organisation of what is arguably the most important stakeholders -
individuals.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527

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