Re: [ga] No Members?

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

People use the term "member" informally all the time; it's 
convenient.  That does not mean that their use in any way relates to the 
legalities associated with formal use of the term.

People often refer to IETF "members" but, in fact, there is no such 
thing.  There are participants, but nothing that constitutes membership.

Instead of looking around for non-legal examples that use the term, why not 
pay attention to the very simple and direct explanations that have been 
provided.  They are not very complicated.

California non-profits MAY have members, but they do not have to.  It is, 
in fact, more common that they do NOT have members because of management 
complexity when formal membership exists.  (I have run a 503(c)(3) and a 
503(c)(6).)  I am not a lawyer, but this issue is extremely well 
understood, concerning non-profit formation.

d/

ps.  What is the productive goal in pursuing this matter in such 
detail?  Are there no other issues for the GA to consider?


At 09:54 AM 4/4/2001, Bruce James wrote:
>OK, I am dumb.... Why did the Markle Foundation say in its Grant:
>
>1) Membership Program Manager - 6 months including benefits    $30,000
>
>If we don't have any *Members*?? Did ICANN return the money?

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

--
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