Re: [atlarge-discuss] RE : [atlarge-discuss] Membership fees

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel CHIRITA <daniel@chirita.org>

>Can you explain please ? Do you want membership levels, with
>different advantages according to their financial contribution ?
>If it is that, I do not agree, we must keep our open statute.
>We can accept gifts but that should give place to no advantage
>in return !
>
>Daniel CHIRITA

What I can't get my head round is that people all over the world - ordinary
internet users - should be expected to pay for the right to participate in
our campaigns for democratic governance of the net by ordinary users. Nor
can I see why people should have to *pay* for the right to vote for the
advancement of this cause. Because basically this organisation is not
setting out to be an insiders' club. We (the organisation) exist for, and
belong to, all the people of the world. It is (or should be) already *their*
organisation. They are already members *by right* and they should not have
to pay for that right.

I can see some strength in Walter's thought patterns, if this fundamental
*right to belong, free* is respected first. I, for example, would be
prepared to be either a voluntary donor, or to pay a subscription for
certain advanced services, or you could give subscribers a special
subscribers' page on our website with photo and info and their viewpoints...
one webpage per subscriber... and others would probably feel the same about
sponsorship packages in due course.

But the right to join - the right to vote - the right to participate or be
elected - should be open freely to every single internet user on the planet.
Indeed, I would like to see membership extended to people the wrong side of
the digital divide, because we should represent their viewpoint too.

I believe our aim is to set no limits on who may join this organisation,
because I think that will be the best way to wrest ourselves free of vested
interests, ICANN agents, industry insiders etc... if we are really easy to
join, then numerically we will probably attract five to ten times as many
people (if not more)... agreed we will attract a few superficial members...
but we will begin the construction of a real, bottom up, grassroots movement
beyond the control of ICANN.

The alternative is probably a small club of 500 to 1500 people (less than
that right now) who will simply become another, rather small pressure group.
The world is full of them. Right now, if you contacted all the 1000 people
who have joined us, and requested even a minimal $5, I think fewer than 300
would be willing to pay. Ask for $50 and the number would diminish to 100 or
less. And you could raise more, initially, by donations.

So, yes, aspects of Walter's levels of service could be built in (and might
prevent division), but this organisation should already 'belong' to everyone
who uses the Internet, and each individual should be able to claim his/her
right to participate in it and vote in it, and have their say in determining
the future of the people's net.

I realise that this viewpoint is rather idealistic and does not address
practical and financial issues, but I take the view that *only* an unusual,
distinctive, and idealistic initiative will have any real chance to become
politically significant. I don't think the small, informed pressure group
approach will work. Those in power will pretend to "listen", and they may
even pretend to be "influenced" but they will do whatever they need to
retain their power.

Only the idealistic project to create a people's movement, setting out to
reclaim the net from corporate insiders etc, will be able to gain a credible
platform to take on the elite, and to hook the media, and therefore the
starting point needs to be free access for all, and ease of access too, if
we want to attract really large numbers.

It is no easy matter, but I think a fee-barrier will create an insuperable
obstacle... donations, or optional subscriptions for peripheral extras, seem
to me to be a better way.

My proposal: say... 50,000 people of whom 1000 pay voluntary contribution of
$60 a year.

Fee proposal: say... 5,000 people (optimistic) charging $5 a year, of whom
100 pay voluntary contribution of $60 a year.

Overall income difference: marginal (except a larger org is more likely to
attract sponsors).

Overall benefit of 'free' membership: 10 times as many members.

The real challenge is communication, not money. We need to get our message
spread like a virus. A simple, clear, attractive campaign of "Us" versus the
greedy corporate "them". People understand that.

People should not have to pay for what is already theirs, though they are
free to contribute. The whole world is already implicitly 'inside' our
movement. They just have to claim it.


yrs,

Richard Henderson




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