At 05:56 PM 4/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
[Big snips all around]
>So do I. However, even the most wealthy would not part with that princely
>sum without a reason to do so.
>I see that you are taking things to heart.
>
>> No definition of who are members and who are not? No exchange of
>> dues for a certificate, even if only a card, giving me the rights of
>> a member? No defined process for electing representatives of the
>> membership to the organization's management? No, my friend. I don't
>> play those games.
>
>Games is exactly what they are, because the membership would have no legal
>power.
Some time in the distant past I spoke of a buck or so per web site to ICANN.
Why? ICANN's initial and even some recent funding came from some big pockets.
"You dance with the one what brung ya." The purpose of a small fee would be to
replace a few big checks with beaucoup little ones (or their equivalent),
so that
ICANN would not be dependent upon the MONEY to operate. Does that automatically
give all us little folk a voice in ICANN? Probably no. Would we have any
voice if we
contributed nothing? Much more probably no. So you go with what looks best --
they want to impose an "ICANN tax" or whatever they want to call it, that's
fine with
me. I can pass up a cappuccino, and those who want to pass up a Coke can
probably
do so as well.
Bill Lovell
