Re: [ga] No Members?

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2001-04-04 11:42:39 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

> We are spending big money studying the At Large. This directly
> ties into boardsquatter issues. Some Congressmen are extremely
> interested in it. At least one two outside groups are funding
> their own research into it. It is supposedly how we elect the
> people who approve contracts with the USG and Versign.

Indeed.  But does this mean that the California code's notion of
membership with a non-profit organization is the best way to create
an at large membership?  Does it mean that it's reasonable to give
these rights to an at large membership?

Frankly, I'm not sure whether or not it would be healthy for ICANN
to have an at large membership with all the rights of statutory
members.  However, I'm quite sure that an at large membership which
elects members of the board and creates additional accountability
for the board would be quite helpful to the net at large.

So, please, let's get away from the legal battle on whether or not
ICANN successfully managed to avoid a statutory membership. Instead,
let's look at what kind of at large membership would be helpful,
healthy and reasonable for ICANN.

BTW, I do acknowledge that some of the statutory rights should
reasonably be given to an at large membership, or would be helpful
in order to create an ALM which could actually provide ICANN with
reasonable input.  But even this doesn't mean that trying to gain
that rights by using legal loopholes is helpful in any way.

-- 
Thomas Roessler			    <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
--
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