Mark and all, I couldn't agree with your comments more here. But I think in order to get any action of any kind you need to address your comments and concerns to those that have the oversight of this FRAUD and FARSE. Namely the NTIA/DOC and the Congressional Commerce Commission as well as you local US Senator and Congressman. I have in this case taken the liberty of CC'ing some of those for you here in this reply. Mark C. Langston wrote: > Among the other problems already mentioned, is anyone else disgusted > with the clause (Art II, S2) that states that ICANN can vary the At Large > membership fee for certain individuals? I have a prediction: The > At Large membership will come into being wholly formed. It will be > ISOC. And the fee will be a small percentage of ISOC chapter dues. > > ICANN has a prebuilt 5,000-person group in ISOC, and I have no doubt they'll > rush to use it. > > Of course, any other person who wishes to join the At Large membership, > with no rights, no voice whatsoever, will have to pay a fee, since the > At Large membership is the cash cow ICANN will milk to fund its > exclusive junkets here and abroad, and to pay off Jones Day. That is, > it'll cover those costs not already covered by large corporate > contributions (Cisco, AT&T, IBM, etc.) > > Furthermore, and perhaps the most sickening, is the following inclusion > in the next Section: > > "The Corporation shall, pursuant to policies adopted by the Board and > consistent with other policies of the Corporation, provide a method > for Members to communicate with other Members in such ways and under > such circumstances as the Board determines are appropriate and > desirable." > > Section 4 then states: > > "f) Use of the methods made available pursuant to Section 3 of this > Article II for an improper purpose or for any > purpose not approved by the Corporation" > > as a reason for termination of the At Large membership for an individual. > In short, ICANN can revoke your At Large membership, for which you paid, > if you say things they don't agree with on the official At Large > list. > > The ICANN BoD will dictate how we will communicate with each other? > Under circumstances they deem "appropriate and desirable"? Excuse the > hell out of me, but I will NOT be censored by the ICANN BoD. > > Anyone up for forming the official ICANN At-Large Membership mailing > list before they create their censored version? Let's just declare the > IFWP list the ICANN At-Large membership list and be done with it. > > Finally, Section 6 requires the 5,000 people be Members before the > At Large board can be formed. This means that 5,000 must submit to this > and pey their fees. Then the BoD will allow the At Large membership to > put foth candidates, just like the current DNSO BoD candidate fiasco, > and the ICANN BoD will decide who gets to be on the At Large council, > the only real voice the At Large membership has. > > HOW MUCH MORE CAPTURE CAN EXIST IN THIS FARCE OF AN ORGANIZATION? > > Also, Article 5, Section 9c4, states that if at any time the At Large > membership drops below 5000, the At Large Board Directors (a full HALF > OF THE ICANN BoD) shall not serve until the At Large membership again > goes above 5000. Bingo, ICANN and various large bodies can now manipulate > the gross power structure of the ICANN BoD to their own ends simply by > having their members withdraw their membership from the At Large > body, dropping the membership below 5000. > > Article VI, Section 2j is eliminated, doing away with the DNSO > grievance committee. There goes any recourse we would have had. > > These changes are absolutely disgusting. > > -- > Mark C. Langston > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Systems Admin > San Jose, CA Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
