RE: [Membership] MAC reports and models-New URLs

[a@help.org]

I do not fully understand what is meant by "full knowledge of the
implications"  I expect you mean something to the effect that there is a
concern of members not being knowledgeable enough to vote on technical
issues that ICANN will be involved with.  In the defense of model 3 I also
noticed this statement: "to discourage individuals who are not serious about
the technical coordination of the Internet from joining ICANN."

I don't buy this argument.  I believe this type of thinking will just lead
to excluding people from membership.  Certainly the ICANN chairman (Esther
Dyson) do not have the technical knowledge necessary to deal with some of
the ICANN issues.  If you review the article she wrote in the second issue
of Brill's content you can see that she was unable to describe how Internet
cookies and browser caches work.  She later indicated that she did not have
a technical background yet she was chosen as the chair for ICANN.  I don't
think it is proper to try to make stipulations on the member's when the
board does not even follow this.

I think this domain registration/membership issue is a major one since it
affects the overall numbers of membership (thousands rather than millions).
I am not necessarily convinced that this is the way to go but I think it
should not be ruled out before it is fully discussed.

I also have strong reservations against model 3 that has organizations
supposedly representing its members and voting on their behalf.  I see all
kinds of groups in DC making questionable claims about representing members
or segments of the population.  for example, the Direct Marketing Assn.
claims to represent the marketing industry but they won't release their
membership roster.  CDT goes around claiming they represent consumers when,
in fact, the majority of their funding comes from major corporate entities
such as AOL, Microsoft, and AT&T (see info from their tax returns at
http://consumer.net/cdtinfo.asp#funding).

Another possible problem is similar to what is happening with the TRUSTe
privacy program.  The current TRUSTe program has deteriorated to essentially
an industry front.  Not only does the staff discourage consumer complaints,
they have taken a defensive position where the staff is essentially acting
as defense lawyers for their major corporate sponsors.  I have been filing
complaints with them for months concerning false statements in AOL's privacy
policy.  TRUSte has provided me with a series of loopholes.  They have
claimed things such as www.aol.com is covered by the TRUSTe but if you
actually join you are not covered, they claimed they were a small
organization and did not have the time to process complaints, many
complaints they just ignored, now they claim they need additional copies of
information I already sent them.  This has gone on for MONTHS and my next
step is to file a formal FTC complaint.  the complaint involves the
distribution of personal information to third parties (one of the main
issues of the TRUSTe program).  AOL claims they do not do it.  However, I
have taped conversations of a telemarketing outfit who admits AOL supplies
them with personal information (this includes cc number, screen name,
address, etc.) in order to sell all kinds of products via telemarketing.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net



>I am not sure if payment of a levy, embedded in the registration fee
charged by the registrar, can be considered as a membership fee also. I
suspect membership might be something that needs to be applied for, in full
knowledge of the implications. I doubt if such a complication would be
welcome to registrars.
However, DN holders, having paid the levy, and applying for membership,
could be considered to have paid the membership fee.
Greg.