[Membership] ICANN, MAC and membership@icann.org: WHY IT ISN'T WORKING

["Joseph LeBaron" <Joseph@LeBaron.net>]

Diane Cabell wrote:

The consensus is that the At Large membership should extend beyond the
Category of domain holders.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

Diane and all,

With all due respect: whose consensus? I recall the requirement for the MAC
members to be ready to work in a fishbowl environment of transparency. Apart
from your own postings, there has been very little evidence of other MAC
members involving themselves in the debate....

COMMENT:

	I have been following this list for some time now.  I find the posts lively
and informed.   But for what purpose are the posts? If it is to vent,
membership@icann.org is a wonderful forum.  If, however, the purpose is to
participate in the deliberations and decisions of ICANN, well, then, that
seems to be an entirely different matter.

	I don't know about the others posting here, but I often feel that I am on
the playing field while ICANN and MAC leadership quietly observe from the
stands, picking what they wish to watch, ignoring what they wish.  And, at
the end of day, deciding what they wish.

	I agree with Joop Teernstra.  This is not transparency.  This is not
participation.  It appears to be a charade.

	I hope I'm wrong; ICANN is involved in such important work.