[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Membership] ICIIU Comments on M.A.C. Recommendations of 4-26-99
On 28 Apr 99, at 13:57, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Comments on the Recommendations of the Membership Advisory Committee
> of 26 April 1999 (http://cyber.harvard.edu/rcs/alp-comment.htm)
> Principles of the At-large Membership
> 2. At-large membership is open to both individuals and
> organizations, however, no organization that has a right to
> designate or otherwise directly vote for an SO Director may register
> as an at-large Member. “Organization” shmean any institution
> officially recognized as a legal persona under the laws of the
> nation where it claims legal residence. Individuals who are members
> of the SOs or their constituencies are welcome to join the
> at-largemembership. The most feasible protection against capture by
> interests that are not representative of the the user
> community at large is to enroll as many Members as possible.
> Comment: Where does this leave the ICIIU? We are signing people up
> for the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders constituency of the DNSO,
> since we believe that at least some Internet-related non-profit
> organizations represent users and therefore should have a voice in
> that constituency; but at the same time it would seem that our place
> is in the At-Large membership, by this definition of it. How do we
> resolve this problem? Should we drop out of the NCDNHC, and wait to
> become part of the At-Large membership? Wouldn't it be a mistake to
> leave the DNSO entirely in the hands of organizations, and
> commercial ones at that? At the same time, isn't it wrong for a
> strictly independent user-oriented entity like the ICIIU not to be
> involved in the At-Large membership? How can we solve this?
it might be usefull to remember : DNSO will have 3 seats
ALM (at-large-members) 9 !
> 3. It is not recommended that membership fees be assessed at this
> time. If membership fees should be assessed in the future, they
> shall reflect the economic differences of the various geographic
> Comment: As in our commentary to the previously posted M.A.C.
> recommendations, we believe it is a mistake not to charge membership
> fees as this will make it virtually impossible to define the
> membership or deal with it administratively, and we strongly feel
> that an individual who does not make at least a token financial
> commitment to the organization will not take membership responsibly.
while I agree with you here, I had to learn that most of MAC had an other
understanding, it was a majority decision.