[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Membership] Shooting straw men
Kent Crispin wrote:
> > The question is whether the IFWP (list, attendees at meetings and
> > anyone else who cares to join) should form the nucleus of ICANN's
> > membership (a "jump start"),
> Has anyone seriously suggested this?
> That would be completely nuts.
Isn't that a bit strong?
> The IFWP is not an organization;
No. ICANN is.
> there is no coherent list of members;
There are gaps. But, they will be filled. We are talking
about open membership. We are talking about a beginning,
not an end product.
> some of the entities on the mailing list are clearly fabrications.
I do not know which or how many entities you have in mind,
but that is a separate issue to be addressed with any
> I consider legal existence, either as a natural person or as a
> legally sanctioned entity such as a corporation, as an absolutely
> basic requirement for membership. There are issues of enforcement
> and verification that must be resolved, but the basic principle seems
> to me essential.
This is a continuation of the same point. Again, this is a
separate issue to be discussed and resolved on its own
> Moreover, there is no need for a "jump-start" as you seem to mean.
> It should be clear that a substantial time must elapse between the
> opening of membership and the first election -- on the order of 6
> months, at least.
As I indicated in an earlier post, I agree that everyone who
really wants to be a member will find her way to the new
entity whether the IFWP list is used or not.
> As well, there needs to be a defined transition process -- there are
> verification mechanisms that need to be established; the empty
> Article II of the bylaws needs to be drafted; people must be selected
> to operate the initial verification (these people are probably *not*
> the initial members); voting mechanisms need to be established, etc
> etc etc.
All separate issues which need to be resolved no matter what
we do. If someone participates on the IFWP list with
multiple identities, he/she is subject to challenge. If
verification is required, that requirement may be applied to
extant participants as well as new arrivals (or not).
But, you have not addressed the arguments why the IFWP
SHOULD be used. Did you happen to notice that post? What
are your thoughts on those points?