Which ones? What things could ICANN do to help ?
At 04:52 PM 10/22/99 -0400, you wrote:
>thanks for the comments. Some valid points!
>
>Esther
>
> At 04:22 pm 10/20/1999 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>Below follows my comment on
>>http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws-amend-redline-8oct99.htm#II
>>
>>The proposed language makes it clear that ICANN does no longer intend to be
>>a membership organization as originally envisaged and mandated by the White
>>Paper and by the earlier iterations of the bylaws.
>>
>>The fact that the word "member" is still used in the bylaws is misleading
>>and the term "supporting individual" would be more appropriate.
>>
>>In particular:
>>section 2. The power of the Board to waive fee requirements for selected
>>groups of members might lead to accusations of favouritism for certain
>>groupings of members.
>>It were better if the Board did not have such powers but that independent
>>foundations, not connected to any of the interests represented in the SO's
>>would subsidize members individually or in groups.
>>
>>section 3. This should simply be a members-only mailing list, with proper
>>list rules. This would be the only place where candidates for Council or
>>Board could campaign.
>>
>>Section 4.
>> (f) the word "methods" makes the intent of this article unclear. Is what
>>is meant abuse of the mailing list privileges?
>>(g) "prejudicial to the corporation" should not lightly be used to stifle
>>honest criticism. More detailed procedure is necessary to determine what
>>actually happens before a "member" can be ousted and how fair hearings can
>>be effected.
>>
>>(h)(members can be expelled for any other reasons determined by the
>>Board--presumably the Board minus it's at large members) is is too open
>>ended and should be deleted
>>
>>Section 6. It would be better if this article actually specified a method
>>of nomination and election rather than leave it to the yet unstructured
>>body of members to make this determination.
>>This would greatly speed up the process of getting elected AL Council members.
>>Or is this perhaps not intended?
>>
>>Section 7. General Comment on the Geographic diversity requirements: these
>>will serve to frustrate the membership in the election of globally
>>acceptable candidates and cause division and possibly strife with
>>regionally elected candidates with far less numerical support.
>>
>>Section 9 (b and c) do not provide sufficient safeguards that individuals
>>strongly identified with and represented by SO constituency interests, will
>>not gain additional support for their interests by standing for elections
>>for the AL council.
>>The basic idea behind the AL council is to create genuine balance on the
>>ICANN Board and a counterweight for users' interests that are unrepresented
>>by the SO's.
>>
>>(g) The comprehensibility of this article could greatly benefit by some
>>rewording. Is it meant that a date will be established by which the number
>>of members entitled to participate in an election be frozen?
>>Or did I fail to comprehend it at all?
>>
>>Dropping the whole AL Board member elections when the membership falls
>>below 5000- NO, DO NOT DO THIS.
>>
>>(h) This provision undermines the whole idea of ICANN as a membership
>>organization. If the members are invited to join by a genuine open process,
>>without special announcements to existing interest organizations or special
>>membership fee privileges for such groups, the number of 5000 members
>>should not be the be-all and end-all for the AL membership.
>>
>>The powers of the Board to make membership more attractive or less
>>attractive could be abused to manipulate the membership number around the
>>critical 5000.
>>With this rule in place, being a "member" of a membership of less than 5000
>>holds no attraction at all, leading to a massive negative feedback on the
>>remaining membership as soon as the number would spiral below 5000.
>>The conclusion that an insufficient number of individuals would have an
>>interest in ICANN would become self-fulfilling.
>>
>>I strongly recommend that this provision be deleted.
>>
>>General Comment on these AL "membership" provisions.
>>I fail to see how anyone would be interested to spend precious time, let
>>alone money , on being an ICANN "member", unless this would come
>>pre-packaged with the benefits of a membership in an existing organisation.
>>
>>This is exactly what should *not* happen, in view of the climate of
>>suspicion of capture by certain industry -dominated groups that already
>>exists.
>>But unless these rules are substantially rewritten in the light of comments
>>received from the community, it seems almost inevitable that no
>>*independent* at large membership will come into being.
>>
>>Failure or capture of the AL membership makes it even more important for
>>Individual Domain Name Owners to press for their admission into the DNSO.
>>
>>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
>>the Cyberspace Association,
>>the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
>>http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/
>>
>>
>
>
>Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>1 (212) 924-8800 -- 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>New York, NY 10011 USA
>http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
>
>High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>PC Forum: 12 to 15 March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>Book: "Release 2.1: A design for living in the digital age"
>
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"I see you've got yout fist out. Say your peace and get out. Guess
I get the gist of it, but... it's alright. Sorry that you feel that
way. The only thing there is to say is to say: ever silver lining
has a touch of grey" - JG.
