[Membership] Why not ISOC?

[Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

Elliot Nesterman wrote:
> 
> The same can be said of ISOC. 

Yes.  And, I have.

However, my mere suggestion of the ISOC model suffered a
cool reception at Reston and the suggestion of making ISOC
the general membership has not received any support in
subsequent posts.  Perhaps these are some of the reasons:

*  ISOC has an "entrenched" management/establishment and
would not be an easy horse for the ICANN management and
expanded membership to ride.  Indeed, ISOC might end up the
rider and ICANN the horse.

*  ISOC is not perceived as a level playing field for all
interests and individuals.  There are significant
constituencies which would not care to be in ISOC's stable.  

*  ISOC's governance mechanism is set in firmer concrete
than many would like at this stage, while the IFWP is still
in formation (as is the ICANN).  For instance, ISOC's
nomination process (if you are not nominated by its
committee, you have to get 68 supporters to sign your
petition, as I recall).

*  ISOC may have been the/an appropriate vehicle for
management of the IP, DN and protocol functions, but, for
whatever reasons, participated in a next step called the
IFWP, which was created for the expressed and exclusive
purpose of developing the entity to carry out the mandate of
the White Paper.  Thus, while ISOC is part of the Internet
structure and history, there was an evolution to the IFWP
process which was specifically designed to find and
institutionalize global consensus.