[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


At 02:30:27 4/11/99 -0700, David J. Steele wrote:
>I agree with Michael Sondow - a free membership will cause rampant voter
>fraud, absent some mechanism to curtail the certain abuse.  Such mechanisms
>could be as simple as paper mailing voter materials, however any such
>verification mechanism will cost ICANN money. If the membership has no dues,
>then the membership becomes a corporate liability, which in turn will create
>a parade of horribles (less voting by members, perception that membership
>involvement should be limited to curtail costs, etc).
>One remedy is to assess a membership fee to cover attendant costs of the
>membership body - including voting and prevention of voter fraud.  It is
>even likely that some operating revenue could be generated as well without
>imposing any real fiscal burden to the membership. In any event, such a fee
>can easily and fairly be charged based on such factors as to account for the
>disparate financial conditions of each member/country/geographic region, and
>the like.

Agreed.  A nominal fee would go a long way to prevent the fraud that I fear
is likely to ensue otherwise, especially if no tangible verification is
being done.  Even something as minimal as requesting a payment in the range
of US$1-20, leaving it up to the individual to determine where along that
range they'd like to place themselves, considering their financial means
and whatnot.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily screaming for this to be changed in MAC's
final recommendations to the board.  I recognize that there are reasonable
arguments on both sides, and there is a need to get things finalized.  But
I think it would be wise to add some language requiring the issue to be
revisited in, say, 12 months, at which time we can evaluate the level of
abuse that appears to be occurring and take appropriate steps to correct
the weak points of the enrollment structures.

One question I'd like someone on the MAC to clear up for me.  I have just
been reading over the list of "consensus points" from March 3 (Singapore)
and March 18 (conference call), and have noted a number of significant
shifts on certain issues.  This seems a bit odd to me, since this would
seem to imply that the group's consensus shifted radically in the
intervening two weeks, during which no committee meetings are recorded.  Is
this the result of a great deal of personal communications between
committee members, or does it imply that the consensus points are changing

In particular I noted the 180-degree shift on the mechanics of registering
members.  As of March 3, the consensus was that "Sufficient effort should
be made to identify individuals during membership enrollment to ensure that
election results are valid and authentic." and that "...ICANN would then
respond by regular mail (to verify address)".  As of March 18, however,
this had become "ICANN will only attempt to verify [a member's identity] if
a complaint is lodged".  Quite a significant shift of consensus, and a very
important one in light of the fact that the March 18 notes also specify no
membership fee.  These two point combine to make a potential for the
at-large membership to be highly questionable in its composition.

Again, I don't mean to drag the committee's work backwards, but I would
appreciate some clarification on how exactly a number of key points changed
so markedly in the course of those two weeks.

- Paul

Paul Stauffer, MCSE
Systems Analyst/Administrator       ----====<< Quotes 'R' Us >>====----
Boston University                 ---==<< http://quotes-r-us.org/ >>==---