RE: [atlarge-discuss] Membership

["Bruce Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Danny Younger wrote:

| We are generally agreed that membership in the
| At-Large is open to
| both organizations and individuals...

No.  Individuals only.  One person, one voice.

| How about Roger Cochetti, the policy advisor
| for VeriSign... is he entitled to be an At-Large
| member?

Yes.  But he'd have a full inbox for a while! :)

| What about the Business Constituency?  Is it
| entitled to call itself a member of the At-Large?

No.  Organizations should have no representation in their own right . . .

| What about individual active BC members... can
| they simultaneously be considered to be At-Large members?

 . . . however their members can certianly join.  We have many members that
belong to many other professional and interest groups.  This would just be
another afiliation.

| 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)".

True.  And I take that wording to mean that the focus of this group should
not be on issues other than those that affect Internet users. That means if
someone who is also on the DNSO, for instance, joins the At Large, their
focus should be on their issues as a user, not a domain name holder.

| -- the At-Large is supposed to be the unique
| home for those without such representation.

No, its a home where such represention has no force.

| 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".

For which users had no direct input.  Besides which, this organization is
not subject to ICANN's rulemaking unless our membership chooses to be.

| 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.

Other than sheer conjecture on your part, what is the basis of that
statement?

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!





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