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

Re: [Membership] Peripheral comments on MAC recommendations

A 13:04 29/04/99 +0200, Mark Measday a écrit : 
Daniel, please ignore me if these are points the MAC has already covered, I
haven't had time to absorb all the fine detail. However, I haven't seen any
comment on them elsewhere. If you find some of the statements rather
coarse-grained, it is the hope that someone can come up with an subtle
economic rebuttal of the high cost of enabling participatory democracy. 

I should definitely not ignore you. The MAC is a small committee, and the
reason why there is a comment period is for us to listen and respond to
them. And I personally find your comments very civil and constructive, and
hope you did not read my answers as dismissive.

Daniel Kaplan wrote: 
- We don't anticipate that many people to join AL membership. We'll be 
happy if we're wrong. If we're right, though, total cost will be very 
bearable, even if cost-per-member is high.
If they are going to elect nine at-large directors, there need to be a
sufficient number to counterbalance the business and professional interest
of the others. Otherwise it's a trade association (and there are plenty who
want it to be that). It wouldn't be possible (even fair)  to continue with
that number of at-large directors, or to give them any effective power, if
their constituency is only a few hundreds. 

You are right. We must all do eveything in our power to get many people to
join, and lower barriers as much as we can. But we can't force people to
join, either.

However, I suddenly wonder: Why haven't we contemplated charging 
organizations and not individuals? Is it a silly idea?
Charge organizations a multiple of the individual fee according to the
stated number of employees in their annual accounts? Presumably charges
should also apply to professional members and not only the at-large

I would not do that, it's too complicated. I'd just say: if you're an
individual, it's free. If you're an association, it's $X (maybe with a
simple scale to allow for different revenue per capita in each country). If
you're a company, it's $Y (w/scale). Y > X and both are rather low anyway.
This is just a thought, and has not been discussed in the MAC.

(Internet users in developing countries)
are also students, teachers and researchers in public universities, 
civil servants... Who are often reasonably well-off for their country, but 
very poor for developed countries' standards. In Vietnam, if you make 
U.S.$200 a month, you're a wealthy person. 
  Their organizations would join, as those people would be ill-advised in
many cases to join as individual members? ICANN's job is in its name, if it
is interested in flattening global wealth differences, it should ask for a
different mandate? 

True, but at the same time, if we want ICANN to be a global organization
(while paying the cost of a California location), we have to take theses
differences into account.


* Les chiffres de l'Internet et du commerce électronique *
* http://www.finances.gouv.fr/comelec/travaux/           *
Daniel Kaplan                       Consultant
dkaplan@terra-nova.fr   http://www.dkaplan.net
5, rue de la Véga  -  75012 Paris   -   France
Tel +33 (0)1 5333 8881  Fax +33 (0)1 5333 8882