AW: [icann-eu] "The Corporation shall not have members"

[Christian Schultz Kommunalberatung <SchultzKom@t-online.de>]

Dear all,

I cannot understand: Are we still @Large-members or had this been only a
dream?
If article II of somewhat speaks of the corporation "allowing" individuals
to participate, I find no more what I thougt being an @Large-member.
What´s on with ICANN and @Large???

Best regards

Christian


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de [mailto:owner-icann-europe@fitug.de]Im
Auftrag von JIM FLEMING
Gesendet: Montag, 20. November 2000 18:27
An: Christian Schultz Kommunalberatung; Harald Alvestrand; Marc
Schneiders
Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
Betreff: [icann-eu] "The Corporation shall not have members"


http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#II

ARTICLE II: MEMBERSHIP

Section 1. GENERAL

The Corporation shall not have members as defined in the California
Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL"), notwithstanding the use
of the term "Member" in these bylaws, in a selection plan adopted by Board
resolution, or in any other action of the Board. Instead, the Corporation
shall allow individuals (described in these bylaws as "Members") to
participate in the activities of the Corporation as described in this
Article II and in a selection plan adopted by Board resolution, and only to
the extent set forth in this Article II and in a selection plan adopted by
Board resolution.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Schultz Kommunalberatung <SchultzKom@t-online.de>
To: Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>; Marc Schneiders
<marc@schneiders.org>
Cc: <icann-europe@fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 10:57 AM
Subject: AW: [icann-eu] 10.000 PIN codes found....


> Dear Harald,
>
> thanks for your looking into ICANN´s office. It has confirmed my thought
> that there must be a great disorder in this office.  Meanwhile I´m not
more
> surprised about this because I have some months experience with the ICANN
> staff. With 60.000 not activated memberships there rests no doubts who
could
> solve this problem for these members.
> I hope that ICANN after solving the great problem with the new TLD´s can
> solve also the no less important problem of many thousands members who
> like(d) to become real members.
> If furtherone no one will care about this much members will leave. Is this
> an aim of ICANN? Is the frequent mentioning of a democratic foundation of
> ICANN enough?
> I make an appeal to our members who are at the same time members at the
> board of ICANN to see that will be repaired.
>
> Best regards
>
> Christian
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de [mailto:owner-icann-europe@fitug.de]Im
> Auftrag von Harald Alvestrand
> Gesendet: Montag, 20. November 2000 14:52
> An: Marc Schneiders
> Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
> Betreff: Re: [icann-eu] 10.000 PIN codes found....
>
>
> At 06:58 19/11/2000 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, at 11:53 [=GMT+0100], Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >
> > > some might like to know...
> >
> >I do very much. I have still not lost my surprise that people have let
> >this go so easily. Thanks for telling!
> >
> > > I stuck my head into ICANN's offices while I was in LA.
> > > In the At Large Membership office, she (it's one person!) has stacked
up
> > > approximately 10.000 PIN code envelopes, all returned from the post
> office
> > > and stamped with some variant of "unknown address".
> >
> >The next question would be: from which countries? What exactly do
> >these stamps say?
>
> no stats - the 2 or 3 I looked at were typical post office stamps with 4-5
> boxes, and tickmarks in the "no such addressee".
>
> > > I suggested she should take a picture of them and put it on the Web,
so
> > > that we can see what happens if we don't fill out Web forms properly.
> >
> >This is a bit jumping to conclusions. Other explanations include: the
> >webform was not suitable for certain countries, where addresses work
> >differently; a bug in the software that produced the envelopes or
> >labels; the webform was not userfriendly.
>
> the addresses I looked at looked ordinary to me, but failed to arrive. But
> it was a very small sample (2).
> I got my PID, so for my address it worked fine, but I don't remember the
> webform.
> OTOH, 7% error rate may not be too bad - don't know if we have anything to
> compare it to; people who accept requests for holiday catalogs over the
Web
> can probably tell you the hit/miss rate they experience.
>
> > > Only 60.000 non-activated memberships left to understand..... >
> >
> >What a relief! Though I would like to understand more of these 10,000
> >as well. Why not have a volunteer classify and count them? Might give
> >us a real clue.
>
> If you know a volunteer in the Bay Area, send his/her name to the ICANN
> staff and offer help. I may be able to supply introductions.
> But quick - the likely destination for these envelopes is landfill.
>
> >Thanks again for giving us this information. It suggests that the
> >practical parts of the At Large elections merits a study as well.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
>
>