George Conrades writes:
So my suggestion(s) is/are: No classes. Individuals and
organizations can be members and get one vote each. Anyone
coming up with the initiation fee and the necessary
identification can be a member.
Michael Sondow:
+ Sounds good.
Nonsense Michael. Putting
Bob, we have several issues re membership, including identification, fees,
voting procedures/proxy,nomination/election of at-large directors, and their
relationship to the SO membership,if any,but including geographical
representation. All I'm saying is maybe we should consider approaches at
George and all,
Scale in what way? Could you please define you meaning of "Scale"?
In addition, I would add that if you intend to advocate that only a limited
number of stakeholders can become members, how do you justify this
against the requirements of the White Paper?
George Conrades
George and all,
Again George, how does restricting membership to what you suggest as
an example, Domain Name Holders, meet the requirements of the
White Paper of "All Interested Parties"?
George Conrades wrote:
No, to domain name holders as an example.
-Original Message-
From:
Steve and all,
We (INEGroup) agree with steve's contention here entirely. George's
suggestion of limiting membership in any fashion is ethically challenged
to say the least, not to mention in strict contrast to the requirements
of the White Paper.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George:
YOUR
Daniel Kaplan writes:
+ So my suggestion(s) is/are: No classes. Individuals and organizations
+ can be members and get one vote each. Anyone coming up with the
+ initiation fee and the necessary identification can be a member.
I'll just form a thousand dummy companies
each with their own
Daniel Kaplan rejoinders:
even in the most restrictive scenario (for instance, if membership
was limited to IP address / DN holders), you would qualify!
I would never join an organization none of my
friends and neighbours could participate in.
I am not one of the elite nor do I consider
