Re: [atlarge-discuss] Membership

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 02:33 -0400 2002/10/19, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>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?  

Danny raises a fundamental issue here. One of the first items in a Constitution or founding bylaw is "who is a member?", and for good reason.

Speaking for myself here, I am not "generally agreed" when it comes to organizational memberships. The minute we allow organizational as well as individual members, we set ourselves in a position of conflict of interest.

The "At Large" concept is that *individual* Internet users be allowed to have input; there are already more than enough bodies representing corporate interests. That being said, even Bill Gates or Roger Cochetti must be eligible to join *as an individual*, every bit as much as any other individual: we can't pick and chose which individuals we allow in, so these people are just as entitled to vote as any others.

>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)".    

My personal answer to this is that if there are organizations not represented elsewhere, they have two avenues open to them:
- their members can be individual atlargers
- they can found an organization to lobby for their collective interests
and, in fact, there is no reason why they cannot do both.

>Yet within this icannatlarge.com organization we have a large complement of 
>members that are "already" represented within the Supporting Organizations [snip]
>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". 

Most democracies accept it as fundamental that the rule should be "one person, one vote".

>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.

That being said, a citizen who votes as an individual in one kind of election is not thereby prevented from voting as representative of a constituency in another setting. Like many people, I'm in that position within another organization -- responsible for speaking on behalf of the organization in specified contexts, but otherwise representing only myself. 

I wouldn't think it fair to disenfranchise me as an individual just because an organization I belong to could speak on its own behalf through a delegate sent to a body representing domain-name owners or non-profit corporations.
However, I wouldn't think it fair either for an organization to compel its members to vote its way in an At Large vote rather than according to their own consciences.

I suppose my question is really "Would you want to disenfranchise every individual auto worker just because their employers all have the right to vote in business organizations and chambers of commerce?" If not, then you can't logically prohibit employees of Microsoft or Verisign from joining this group.

Regards,

Judyth


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



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