[ga-full] Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Simon Higgs wrote:
>
>Is there an organizational chart explaining the hierarchy of the 
various 
>memberships within ICANN? i.e. something that will easily differentiate
 the 
>requirements for membership between a mailing list vs. a constituency 
vs. 
>general ICANN membership?
>

As far as I know, there's no hierarchy.
ICANN Membership is independent from participation in Constituencies and
/or mailing lists.

About GA-Membership, there's nothing decided yet, but my opinion is that
 we should have the same independence. In other words, people may be 
member of the GA w/o being member of ICANN and vice-versa.
The sense of my previous message was that this independence, IMHO, 
should also be in place vs. mailing lists and constituencies.

Each structure (mailing list, constituency, WG, membership, ...) serves 
a specific scope, and should aggregate only the people that are 
interested in the scope.

Regards
Roberto


>Thanks.
>
>>Bret Fausett wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Hasn't it been the case that members of constituencies are also 
members
>>  of
>> >the General Assembly, by default? Will those membership lists be 
passed
>>  to
>> >the secretariat or will constituency members have to separately 
enroll?
>>  I'd
>> >favor the former.
>> >
>>
>>Me too.
>>
>>In former times we had to build in a hurry the concept of "membership 
by
>>  default", because of the need for voting procedures (nominations for

>>BoD, for instance).
>>In this context, the NC needed to expand the voting body to include 
not
>>only the GA-list, but also the Constituencies (as a matter of fact, 
the
>>WGs as well).
>>
>>I personally do not like the concept of "membership by default", and
>>much prefere the proactive action of applying for a Membership, as a
>>voluntary act, that you have the freedom of doing or not doing,
>>accepting the consequences (positive and negative) af your action.
>>In other words, you take responsibility for joining, and in the future

>>you could not claim that it was done automatically, maybe even without

>>you knowing it.
>>
>>Furthermore, we may have requirements for membership, that are not
>>necerssarily the same for the constituencies mailing lists or WGs (or
>>the GA-list, for that matter).
>>
>>Last but not least, I have a question: do we check for duplicates, or
>>for "real person", or not? In other words, are we going to have
>>requirements for membership that are even less restrictive than the
>>requirements for subscribing to the Ga mailing list (where we require
>>the subscribers to be "real persons", and we challenge duplicates?
>>
>>Regards
>>Roberto
>>--
>>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html