Dr Nii Quaynor a �crit: > MAC deliberations at Singapore made recommendations on criteria. I recall > that the criteria *did not* exclude people with criminal record because of > potential problems of dissidents, for example. Hence its not true that no > criteria were specified. This meeting was an open meeting, as I recall. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Nii. My comments were on the most recent, March 18th, M.A.C. recommendations, not about what happened two months ago in Singapore. > I support the statement that those who possess or make use of Internet names > and numbers should be members. I however think that there are others who get > impacted by the Internet and should not be excluded. Several of these users > dont own names and *dont* know that numbers even exist. Hence a more > flexible and open membership should be sought beyond what you are calling > for. No organization can have the entire human race as members. A membership that is not defined does not exist. Add to this no dues-paying and you get an ICANN with no membership, which is precisely what Joe Sims and this BoD wanted all along, and what the community fought to prevent. We forced them, with the NTIA's assistance, to put in their Articles of Incorporation and bylaws that ICANN would be a membership organization. Now you are handing them the method for defeating that. > MAC had discussed a more elaborate procedure involving snail mail. I > believe its still being discussed so you may be jumping to conclusions on > this one. I only know what I read. Your March 18th recommendations say no authentication. If you recommend authentication, then say so. Ways and means of authenticating members has been discussed at great length on the membership list. How can you publich recommendations now saying no authentication? > A hard-copy authentication procedure has been discussed. But not recommended. > Several Developing Country constituencies cannot pay the dues. Stuff and nonsense. The stakeholders in developing and underdeveloped countries are invariably from the middle and upper classes. Poor people have no access to the Internet in those countries. Please do not pretend that ISPs and networkers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America can't pay a $20/year membership fee. Every person from those continents related to the Internet whom I have met online or at meetings has more than enough money to pay a normal membership fee. All they have to do is give up a few movies or drinks with their friends. There are no workers or peasants running ISPs, registrars, networks, and e-commerce in the third world. You want to encourage poor people in poor countries to get involved in the Internet and eventually be interested in participating in ICANN? Then make it possible for them to buy a computer and get online, by refusing to let those governments keep the Internet for themselves and their friends, and provide the citizens, all the citizens, with free Internet connectivity and cheap computers. Charity starts at home, not in ICANN. We prefer not > to exclude anyone because of dues. We also want every one to join through > the front door *not* via some special back-door aid. The rich should not > dominate this membership group. We will like to avoid second-class citizens > in this membership. You don't have to be rich to pay $20 to belong to an international organization. All you have to do is have your pants sewn when they get torn instead of buying a new pair. > >6. Members form a single world wide constituency to elect AL > >directors. > > > >A nice sentiment. However, it remains to be seen if it has any > >inherent significance, in light of the other, more pragmatic, > >measures that may make its realization impossible. > > > > This is meant to be a significant statement, I think. With no dues, no authentication, and no rational nominating procedure and election mehtod, it is an empty and meaningless significant statement. The big businesses that are taking control of the Internet and of ICANN aren't sitting around making significant statements, They're scheming how to trick you and me into letting them run things. Please wake up. > Once again, I recall a criteria has been spelled out at one point in > Singapore. But then again, we should avoid any effort to *filter* candidates > since that itself biases the outcome. If every AL member can be a candidate, and each has one vote, then someone can win a directorship with ten votes if everyone else has only one or two. Do you want to see the AL directors be people from IBM who have been elected by the other nine IBM people in the membership? > There are always varied perspectives. A lesson may be not to pre-judge > quickly and not to think that everyoneelse is wrong. These perspectives > have merit and need to be studied in their contexts. I and many others have labored long and hard to find a synthesis of dues structures, authentication mechanisms, and voting procedures. If you throw all that away, and allow the AL membership to become diffuse and not legally protected - because that is the result of having no definition, no dues, and no defined voting method - then you are inviting disaster. What we need are specific, written mechanisms, arrived at through a balance of the needs of the community, and not some wishful thinking and empty gestures towards ideals that exist only in fairy land.
