Re: [ga] No Members?

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 22:17 4/04/01 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>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.
>

Yes, I think it is a good suggestion to leave the legal battle to that
particular battlefield. We have heard both sides and there is little to add.

Following Thomas'  choice of criteria:

Helpful: the kind of at large members who have so far been touched by the
outreach and have actually taken the trouble of signing up as ICANN @large
members, waiting for their PIN and voting for their area's director. To
tell these people to go home now is going to be unhelpful to ICANN.

Healthy: the same members who are gathering here on the mailing lists and
who went to the physical ICANN meetings as "members" and who are bending
over backwards to keep favouring ICANN over other governance solutions, in
spite of having been excluded so far.  To tell the people that they have
wasted their time will be unhealthy to ICANN.

Reasonable: all individuals, such as Domain Name Holders,  who  have a
stake in the DNS and who are directly affected by the outcome of ICANN
policymaking.
To exclude stakeholders in the DNS is unreasonable.

This last category should, of course, not only be @large members, where
they cannot do more than elect their Board members, but it would be helpful
, healthy and reasonable to let them be part of the DNSO policy advising
structure, FWIW now, as well.  



--Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

--
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