Michael Sondow wrote:
> Okay. No exclusionary definition of the At large membership, that
> is, all the world can join. Two: no membership dues, that is, no
> legal contract between the members and the organization. Three: no
> voting mechanism defined in the bylaws, nothing that says how
> candidates are chosen, how they are elected.
All three of these statements are incorrect.
Again, I call attention to the reports submitted to ICANN in Singapore,
and caution against drawing incorrect conclusions from the abbreviated
notes of the teleconference call. At
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/macsing.html there are links to the
complete MAC consensus points where one will find the details of the
recommendations.
> Now, add what's in the fine print about the DNSOs' "voting for
> directors will be indirect, through the Names Council", throw in a
> sunset provision that gives the board the power to revise (or
> eliminate?) direct membership voting for board directors, and what
> do you get?
Actually, there isn't much support on the MAC for true sunset provisions,
and we've decided to propose a monitor and review procedure instead. True
sunsets have a benefit as well as a risk. They disconnect the vested
interests that have taken over and abused their power. So if the
membership gets captured by special interests, the sunset provision would
kill it at a pre-arranged time. If the system is working well, then it
can be renewed. It's a two-edged sword, but the Board already has the
power to make the revisions that concern you, so this neither adds nor
subtracts from that.
> Oh, I almost forgot. Season while hot with Michael Roberts, Joe
> Sims, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Michael Heltzer, and Don Heath, and serve
> with cheap red wine to the IFWP troublemakers.
Well, sir, the MAC is trying to set up a membership structure that will
allow you to elect replacements as soon as possible.
Diane Cabell
MAC
