>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 05:33:39 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["David J. Steele"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From fibertron.com!david Sun Apr 11 05:33:38 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from spike.fibertron.com([216.32.44.235]) (2483 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 05:33:32 -0400 (EDT)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: from david.fibertron.com ([1.1.1.2])
> by spike.fibertron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id CAA21814;
> Sun, 11 Apr 1999 02:30:27 -0700
>Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 02:30:27 -0700
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "David J. Steele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Membership fees
>
>NB. cc list trimmed.
>
>At 12:01 PM 4/11/99 +0800, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>Thank you Michael for your frank comments.
>>
>>As a member of MAC, I would like to respond to a single point now, that is why
>>we plan to make membership fee 'free' - or 'zero', since I am one of these
>>who strongly suggested that - despite some strong counter arguments among
>>my colleagues.
>
>I agree with Michael Sondow - a free membership will cause rampant voter
>fraud, absent some mechanism to curtail the certain abuse. Such mechanisms
>could be as simple as paper mailing voter materials, however any such
>verification mechanism will cost ICANN money. If the membership has no dues,
>then the membership becomes a corporate liability, which in turn will create
>a parade of horribles (less voting by members, perception that membership
>involvement should be limited to curtail costs, etc).
>
>One remedy is to assess a membership fee to cover attendant costs of the
>membership body - including voting and prevention of voter fraud. It is
>even likely that some operating revenue could be generated as well without
>imposing any real fiscal burden to the membership. In any event, such a fee
>can easily and fairly be charged based on such factors as to account for the
>disparate financial conditions of each member/country/geographic region, and
>the like.
>
>Lastly, and likely the most important comment I have tonight is this: ICANN
>needs a viable funding mechanism. A traditional method of corporate funding
>is to generate revenue from the fundamental assets of the corporation - and
>this would work here as well. It is unrealistic to expect ICANN to operate
>as a stable and independent entity by receiving gifts from those who give.
>Such a method creates neither stability nor independence.
>
>djs
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
--Thomas Jefferson
