Collected Survey Comments

 ICANN membership should be of a "pay what you can" nature butexclude no-one from being a member!
 no further comments in this time
 The fee is going to be a sticking point, because most people(myself included) will have a hard time understanding why the ICANNconstituency should have to pay to have a say in the workings of thegroup.
 If really, really necessary, I might be willing to pay a fee tobecome At-Large member, but I think the ICANN efforts should be foundedby some other means (governments or United Nations). You would have topersuade me that it's worthwhile for me to become a paying member.Another problem: I only get ICANN mailings in English, and I think Iunderstand only half of everything. Thus, I am not even sure what*EXACTLY* ICANN and the At-large membership is. (I am German.)
 The At-Large should elect nine ICANN Board members.  
 At-large representation is *required* in order to legitimize themandate of ICANN.  Without it any actions/policies/fiats by ICANN willbe viewed with suspicion at the very least.  To exclude input from the majority will be seen as an invitation toinsurgency, and we have too much of that already.  Failing to providefor an At-Large membership is simply irresponsible.
 I think it's very important to involve ordinary Internet users indetermining policy.  It would a tragedy to let the big corporations setall the rules.
 ICANN needs an overhaul, and the input of real, distributed,diverse human beings is what's going to be required.  Americanbureaucracies are not favoured by anyone.
 ICANN needs to move extremely quickly o restore its now-tarnishedreputation and start to engage in constructive dialogue with the RootDNS owners and the providers of alternate TLDs, and start paying theRoot DNS owners to maintain the service. If ICANN does not it will failand the Internet will become regulated, as no government will allow itto fail.
 As someone who participated in the first election and has followedICANN since the beginning, I am glad to see ICANN taking these steps.
 while i would be willing to pay a nominal fee for membership, ireally feel there should be no fee levied for at-large members.
 Die At-large Mitgliedschaft muß kostenfrei sein! Ein Recht anMitbestimmung darf kein Geld kosten. Die Kosten sollten von denInternet-Providern getragen werden. Die Internet-Provider können dieKosten dann an ihre Kunden weitergeben. Dies ist besser als eine Gebührfür die Mitgliedschaft.
 Dear ICANN,You claim openness, but yet move your meetings to far away places allaround the globe - places that the public at large does not have theresources to go to.You are about the Internet - so WHY on earth do you not use theinternet? You could webcast all these meetings and get feedback andparticipation right there and then.Frankly, so far your organization looks like its more interested ingiving the illusion of open participation and comes across as a decoyorganization.
 No comments @ this time.
 I am very interested in this form of participation.  It is whatmakes one hopeful of a global community and might be one of the keycontributions of global connectivity.
 I am concerned about the explosion of The Internet Community. Thegrowth has seemed at times unmanaged and out of control.
 I thought this was going to be a democratic forum? A membershipfee destroys the whole idea and makes it a typical American thing ...if you have the money .. you can vote and decide, if you don't havemoney ... leave us alone ... 
 Fees would have to be payable by corporation. Multiple membershipsby the same person (individual, multiple employers) should beconsidered and a decision expressly taken on their allowance/banning.
 I just want to advise At-Large Commitee to make the cost as low aspossible, course i think that to high a cost will make many people notjoin the membership, and we need as many as possible as a member forthe At-Large Membership work correctly
 I hope, additional languages will soon be available.
 (You may wish to be aware that this form doesn't show up onNetscape4.7 on IRIX; I used lynx to complete it.) I suggest that domain-namefees should automatically include At-Large representation, if saiddomain names are owned by individuals.
 You should assign a person for each region, I can be in charge ofthe caribbean area.
 ICANN should become completely democratic, with all Directorselected by membership.	The money to run ICANN as a democraticorganization should be raised not by a specific membership fee, but byfees paid to register domain names.  Internet users who do not have adomain name should be given the option to pay a nominal fee, i.e. $5.00for ICANN membership, but domain name holders should be recognized asmembers by default, unless they opt out.
 I think, there should be no costs at all for an At-Largemembership, as everybody should be able to register as an At-Largemember, and not everybody is able to pay a fee. Look for sponsors!
 At-Large membership shouldn't cost anything, exactly likecitizenship of a state doesn't "cost" anything per se. Voting right isa _right_, not some private club you join for money...
 Many of the topics that I hear about are totally politics, andhave no interest to me, simply because they do not apply. If there wasa way to filter out topics of little or no interest, it would save metime by not having to read and download those emails.
 If fee is above US$5 then I suspect one will have a huge drop offin potential membership.
 Adding a fee completely defeats the purpose of the At-LargeMembership.  Decision-making on the internet is not just for people whocan afford it, or who run businesses on it.  All internet users shouldhave input into ICANN's governance and process.
 Congratulations to the ICANN board for the on going interest inhaving a worldwide Internet representative power.  We are bulding anentirely new world society, and it is good that this new societyreflect the needs, aspirations, and difficulties of each and all itsmembers.
 On the principle that the At-Large membership should represent thevoice of Internet users in general, I believe that charging a fee forAt-Large membership is not appropriate.  Even a minimal fee presents alarger hassle as well as introducing issues of trust and security thatwill effectively dissuade many potential members from participating inICANN At-Large.  I full encourage ICANN to pursure other avenues offunding for costs incurred by the At-Large membership process.
 A fee forces many would be members to not participate, for severalgood reasons.  The result would be a "club", and not a diverse,objective community.
 I would like to suggest that there are three fundamentalprinciples that might be adopted to administer the Internet. These arereliability, speed and security. Currently the Internet is just emerging from it's 'embryonic' phaseand Security is the most apparent concern however we will very soon bereminded that Reliability is paramount.Personally I feel that ICANN will be well-placed to defend against anyprivate interests that aspire to control the internet SYSTEM.The ICANN policy of Uniform Dispute Resolution (UDRP)put in place twoyears ago was timely and progressive.Please keep me up to date and - thankyou 
 Although I stated above that I would be willing to pay a small feefor membership, I really do believe that at-large membership should befree for anyone who owns a domain name (i.e., has a vested interest inICANN's work), while perhaps charging a fee to non-domain holders whoalso wish to join.--- Ed
 Is there any At-Large membership Newsletter?If not, can we have one?
 HALF OF THE BOARD !!!!!
 I would be happy to help as part of a large, diverse community.  Ilike the way the new names were chosen with input from the whole group.
 Not at all convinced that "costs" for At-Large representationwould be ones that are necessary, beneficial and most importantly, besomething the members had any control over.
 Although I checked the 5.00USD box, alternative methods forfinancing this initiative should be found. Trim your currentAdministration & Travel budget and a small increase in Registrar'sfee's ought to do it. I think you have almost enough money - use itwiser. And I know you'll laugh but I helped to run a 3 million dollarnon-profit corp. for 15 years so I know what is possible.
 I think that ISOC would be the best vehicle for At-Largemembership input to ICANN.
 It is important that there be a voice for the individualinternetizen, whose interests may diverge from large corporate members,and certainly diverges from governmental or quasi-governmental members.
 If there's a fee, At-Large's accountancy shall be put online, sothat I can see where's my money going.Then I need a clear view of that I would get for that money (the rightto vote every 3 years is not much), most important being that bigcorporations CANNOT pay more and get more.
 If a fee is required for registrations, At-large members fromwealthy countries will likely be overrepresented.
 I believe that at large membership is critical to ICANN's missionand that charging for membership would hurt ICANN's ability to achieveit's mission.
 Please make your you keep the following mail domain for differentcountries:tw (for Taiwan)ch (for China)Thanks.
 Membership transactions should be free of risk for contributorsall over the world, they thus have to be encrypted with a public keytool suggested by ICANN after tendering for such software to beincluded in the membership fee.
 Don't make ICANN an exclusive club for those of us who can afforda membership. Participation should be free at least for peopleseriously contributing their ideas. Otherwise ICANN would lose itslegitimation.
 Perhaps the costs could be paid by a small fee on eachdomain name?
 Kein Zensuswahlrecht!
 Re Q2. and Q3. Answers depend on whether the proper complement of9 at-large directors is seated on the ICANN board as originallypromised, rather than token, eviscerated representation.Answer to Q3. depends on whether the non-at-large members are chargedfees proportional to the economic impact of the Internet on the bodiesthey represent.
 I don't think that members should be required to pay for beingallowed to vote over issues of public interest.
 As a past subscriber to your e-mail dialogue, ( I recently quit )I found the flaming messages, name calling, and non-professionalbehavior to have finally driven me away. Very few messages were writtenin a civilized tone. It was a disgusting free-for-all dogfight. I willnot waste any more time reading stuff like that. Unless someone shutsoff these flaming e-mailers and then promote some kind of thread to thedialog, there is no possible way for anything constructive ormeaningful to survive. In fact, it is impossible to learn which way isup or who is who. Basically, I got more lost as time went on.  I wastherefor unable to figure out where I could possibly fit in. So, eitherthere are some drastic changes in format, or I will remain uninvolvedforever.
 I am already an At-Large member but have always felt that myopportunities for participation were always limited, and that I wasnever allowed to give opinions on the truely important ICANN decisionse.g. attitiude towards country-specific domains (such as the recentNominet fee dispute) and introduction of the new global top-leveldomains (such as .aero and .biz).
 ICANN should meet in Europe too!
 I would certainly like directors to be elected by members only.However, there should be the possibility of natural and organisationalmembership (like nations) and representative fees. Votes should somehowfollow fee structures.
 I would like to know how many members would be accepted !Do you want the whole internet community as mambers ??RegardsUD
 L.S.,      just a small addition to the eventual fee.I'm a cobuilder of of what you call the Internet for over 30 years andpaying already loads of contributions from my private pocket just tokeep up with all of it that the amount of money I have to spend alreadygrowing over over my head. There is no way for me to deduct anything from taxes or via any companyway due to the nature of my work.I do hope you can understand that I cannot affort any additional subscriptions anymore as I also have to keep on buying and buyingsoftware.Remaining with kind regards, 
 suggestions (not necessarily related to membership alone,sorry...):- stick to technology management, not politics- keep a broad foundation within membership and leadership  and equally incorporate the needs of everyone, i.e. not only commerce  and industry- open towards non-US issues and demands- find a reasonable, orthogonal naming scheme for URLs  (i.e. keep intersections between .net, .com, .biz etc. minimal)- develop a well-designed URN scheme- stay neutral with regard of net *content*Regards
 It's ludicrious to ask people to consider taking their time tobecome an At-Large member (time to give experienced input, time to readabout the issues and give thoughtful suggestions, etc.) and then askthem to pay!  At-Large members should NOT foot the bill.  Those whobenefit (purchasers of domain names and those fighting trademarkinfringements, lost domain names, etc.) should foot the bill.
 I very much appreciated the idea of At-Large-Membership when itwas first created. It gives internet users with no direct links toindustry or media a chance to participate in the shaping of a medium weall use, just like a citizen in a state can take part in electionswithout being required to join a special party/organization. Itherefore see ICANN as the only committee with ties to all differentkinds of interest groups which is open to everybody who likes to joinin.
 My experience to date with ICANN has been less than satisfactory.When I originally registered, I was given an ID and a password. Neitherof these was possible to reproduce accurately enough for me toparticipate in further activities. In short, I would love toparticipate, but please keep it simple!
 The idea that you would ask for our input plus our volunteer timeand effort, then ask us to pay for the privilage is both insulting, andit shows how out of touch you are with reality.
 why extra fee? is there not the board of not-elected director´s ,produced by industry and politics, in the majority? so they should payfor their mixing&messing in this people´s interest ininternet-structurizing. such big project must not be eaten byspecial-interest-groups, but should be financed by those living fromit´s target, the internet. so get the money from those directlyinterested in the stable function, the big companies, but keep outtheir guys. when ICANN has been fully captured by some company, allpeople, all mankind will have the loss.and especially american businessclass has proven to have no moralobjections against wrecking the ark for the benefit of theiractioneers.
 I thought that I was already an At-Large member. All of thismessingaround about democratic representation at ICANN is getting reallyannoying. Give us a voice!
 I am already a member of the At-Large community and have beenparticipating on the forums available to me as a member.  This surveyseems to suggest the work carried out previously on the At-Large hasbeen ignored.
 Restriction to domain-owners seems like a wise decision.
 I am not a domain owner, and I hope that such a requirement is notadopted for At-large membership.  Such a measure would be theequivalent of a government enfranchising only landowners, a systemwhich passed its prime several centuries ago.
 There is a danger that at-large members from wealthier nationswould skew representation in one way or another. How their selectionand role are formulated is critical.
 I'd really like to have read various proposals that we can vote onan someone detailing the pros and cons of the proposals. So if there isan issue full time members can say, "This proposal means this and ifenacted this will be the result, vote yes on this." and a rebuttal tothat proposal from the opposition. This would help with the decisonprocess because we at-large-members can't always know what theimplications of a proposal means. I know I feel stongly about securityand privacy and am anti-spam, but I don't always know what will helpthose issues move forward.Thanks youcurrent At-Large-member ICANN
 I thought that I already signed up awhile back?Current working contact information for domain name owners, including phone number and address,should be required and available to the public.
  Would like to be able to have more input and communications thanwe have over the past couple of years.	Thank you and happy to hearthat you are trying to improve the program.  
 The question is, how democratic will ICANN become and how will ituse it's power.
 I realize this is an amorphous assignment and a difficult feat ofgovernance given the world-wide nature of the web. Somehow those of uswho are mere consumers of communication need to be heard among theheavy players for whom the internet is a major piece of business. Ithink I'd be glad to be involved in developments along this line ofthought.
 If there are to be costs for representation and participation theyneed to be defined.  ICANN must be seen to have a payback for a goodnumber of people, it would seem.  So far the only public visibility forthe organization seems to have been its fat cat-oriented conferences. Hopefully this is not more than just a PR problem.
 good luck
 As far is intented transparency activities must be dessigned andexposed to wide comunity. I can't see involvement and moreover it'sstupid ask for a fee if you see a "dead" organization.ICANN must be "free" if it's desired represent community. If requiredfundings... you must look for resources without embrassing authonomyand free action.
 I strongly urge ICANN to continue to open itself to the opinionsof the entire internet community.  The At-Large elections are animportant part of that, though I hope the next ones are a little betterrun.
 I am already a member and read all mailing, although I find webbroadcasts akward and the meeting locations impossible.  This survey seems like a good way to communicate.
 At this point in my life I am not financial enough to participate.Charging fees for membership will tend to make ICANN an exclusive club- but then again if this is the intention.....
 I was under the impression that I already was a member-at-largeable to vote.  
 At-Large membership should not involve any fee. What would youthink of a democracy where only people who pay would vote ???Take this money at IP address blocks registry, FQDN domain registrationbut not at AT-large membership !
 I urge ICANN to allow At-Large membership and to do it at no costto the members if at all possible. While I would be willing to pay asmall fee, I think it's important to allow as many people as possibleto join the At Large membership in order for ICANN to be trulyrepresentative of the WWW community, rather than just a tool ofcorporations.  Making At Large membership free to the public would be abig step towards that end.
 Representation of corporate interests need to be balanced byrepresentation of the people's interests.
 Establish the most effective influence of the At-Large membership!
 Although I would be willing to pay $10/year for membership, I feelvery strongly that *no* fee should be charged for At-Largeparticipation and representation. Voting in democratic countriesinvolves "costs", but voters are not charged those costs. In order toensure the widest possible grass-roots representation from Internetusers, ICANN definetely should not charge a fee for any kind ofAt-Large participation.
 There are a small number of very extreme personalities that have hijacked the forums where 'normal' DNS participants can expresstheir views.  I have been a participating member in the GA, IDNO and TLDA fora, but have had to leave all of them because the volume of personal abuse and gratuitous slander (as well as the inability to delete irrelevant portions of a reply) renders the signal-to-noise ratio too high for any-one with a non-DNS commercial role.I hold about 20 personal and family business domains.  I am directlyresponsible for information security in an organisation that holds about 778 domains (I am still counting, there may be more!) The stability and security of the DNS system, against legal as well as technical threat, is of great interest tome both personally and professionally.	I hope that a voice for thereal DNS user can be found.  It is not amongst the registrars, or the"content providers", who seem to make up the opposing camps in the current DNS battles.At Large membership should be taken seriously.	I do, I hope you do.
 A small donation to say dyndns.org for a pro forma domain incl.At-Large membership would be okay, unless credit cards infos arerequired.  BTW, your geocentric ideas are strange, "my" dyndns domain isn't registerd in Europe.
 ICANN needs to evolve into a democratically legitimizedorganization. The current state of ICANN is disgusting. 
 Its a little unpleaseant, that all activities (and surveys) are inenglish only. That's not the best way for having a extensiveparticipation of an substantial number of non english - speakingmembers.
 Note-if you expect members at large to contribute their time todevelop policies and make suggestions, etc, I don't see why they shouldalso be asked to donate money (through membership fees)- at leastwithout some explanation of member benefits
 This is a serious comment. The issue of charging a fee isCRITICAL. If At-Large membership is to be truly representative, it mustbe without aditional cost, please. At-Large membership is the soleavenue for representation of the consumer population on the net.Consumers who already pay their way fully Please bear with me here...Corporate organisations certainly pay fees but these fees areultimately paid by the consumers through the corporate profits. Evenservices which for example provide free homepages, charge the consumerthrough advertising. If there is no consumer, the corporate side makesno profit, and without profit will ceaase paying fees. The impositionof a DIRECT rather than indirect charge on consumer members of thecommunity, will serve to disenfanchise the multitudes. In addition tothis a fixed financial charge will serve to discriminate onsocio-economic grounds. $5US for example is not a small sum in manyparts of the world. Fees will make ICANN even more US-Centric than italready is. If you truly desire a global reach, and a reach across thewhole community both providers and users, you will recognise that theuser community already contributes indirectly. Lastly, with vastAt-Large membership at your disposal, you should be able to, and couldif you had the will, derive additional revenue through some form ofcorporate advertising / sponsorship. I would rather receive a simpleadvertising email once a week, than pay directly. Please resist thisdisenfranchising discriminatory suggestion. Please do not take away mychance to participate, or that of hundreds of thousands of others.
 Please move faster. The internet is falling apart as its health isbeing increasingly tended to by biased industry factions who areturning it into a dumping ground for their overt marketing andproprietary policies. Microsoft, AOL, etc. It's time to bring somebalance, before it's too late.
 I appreciate the great efforts of ICANN, and look forward to beingable to participate in further development.
 Charging a fee will alter the democratic aspect of theorganization.In fact it will further steepen the digital divide. Therefore the feepolicy is outright immoral.
 The REALLY needs to be a constituency for non-commercial and maybecommercial holders of domain names ... is that At-Large ?
 I think that ICANN is a bit of a joke, much words but the role ofthe organization is not/has not been made clear to most 'Net users. There needs to be more involvement by regular 'Net users butunless/until there is some good educational information given to thepublic, most people are not event aware of your existence, what you do,why, or who controls you, if anyone.
 I have always been disappointed with myself for not having takenadvantage of the original opportunity to become a full member. Becauseof a loss of contact, the golden opportunity was seemingly lostforever.
 There was/is some level of involvement and education within thescience of computer technology which would be a prerequisite formembership, is there not? 
 I am presently at At-Large member, and based on that experience, Iconsider the current setup a scheme to attempt to legitimize ICANN'scurrent activities without providing any ability for the At-Largemembers to provide either direction or control over ICANN activities.I refuse to lend my name to any of the current or future ICANNactivities,or to do anything that will assist or encourage ICANN's control overeitherthe Internet as a whole, or the Domain Name System.The majority of the current ICANN Board of Directors was selected bypartiesand processes that were not disclosed to the public.  The originalinterm Boardwent beyond it's original mandate, enacting policies without clearauthorityto do so.  Based on the sequence of events, I believe it is reasonableto considerthe current Board of Directors to be a continuation of the illegitimateactivitesof the original interm board.It is my goal to see ICANN abolished, and that it's place be taken byanorganization that operates in a transparent fashion, according to afair and equitable set of rules, and which can claim to truly represent the interests of all of the users of the Internet.
 I would want to be sure that the fee went strictly to supportingthe cost of my participation.  $10 seems on the high side.$5 seems more reasonable.
 I understand that there is a proposal for at Large members to belimited to those who own domain names, which I think is unnecessarilyexclusive.  If the at Large membership is supposed to be composed offolks who use the Internet, then why is ICANN limiting members to justone part (Web/mail domain name holders)?  Also, I think the membershipfee for at Large members is wrong (again going into issues ofexclusivity).  Make the at Large membership truely representative ofall of the people who use the Internet, not just a "desirable" few.  
 Geographical and national diversity must be actively supported by At-Large membership rules. A fair balance between influence of activemembers and diversity would be an interesting and useful approach.Multilingualism must be supported by At-Large rules.
	    "AT-LARGE MEMBERESHIP FEES" 02/02/02Sirs, Mams, Monsieurs, Mesdames, et al      Assssing a "Membership fee" on a "volunteer" is not a effective wayto positively affect membership. Or have you redefined "volunteer"? 
 I am interested in what is going on in many areas of our modernlives, but I am fairly new at technology/computer usage. There will notbe much I can do for you, but I would like to continue to read, andlearn along with your progress. If this is acceptable, count me in. Iam an elementary schoolteacher, and who knows what I might be able topass on to the kids so that they stay informed and active in progress.Thanks for the chance to "tune in". Dorothy
 I am greatly puzzled by your apparent struggle with an "at-large"membership.  If you find that you are simply not comfortable with a diverse population of participants that are not controlable, drop thepretense and simply run it as an autocratic organization.  If you intend to have broad participation, do it.  Whats the problem?	Make rules and systems that expedite events that need it and still have a broad based input.
 imho yes/no-questions and lists of choices are the bestpossibility to let people participate in your desired kind of process ... text fields are too time-consuming to fill out
 I do not think countries run by autocrats should be permitted toparticipate in matters concerning how the Internet is managed. At-largemembership should be restricted, accordingly.
 Paying over the Internet without a credit card and without aUS-based debit card is almost impossible. So if that were the case thatonly those two payment options were available, I wouldn't bother payingthe USD5.00 I've selected. Getting a USD cheque in New Zealand costsNZD30.00 in commission, too.
 I doubt that I receive ten dollars worth of say in what is done. Clearly you totally ignored my comments in the past.  Bottom line, Idon't want to be left out.
 The ICANN AtLarge has been taken as a very confused subject bymany. A clear explaination in simple layman term should be available tothe public asap.
 I don't much care about "vote for At-Large leadership".The important part is that I get to vote for At Large Board members,and that such members form at least half the board.Your comittee's suggestion of reducing At Large seats to six strikesme as pernicious and utterly devoid of anything resembling consensussupport.  
 Minimum of 9 board members for at large.
 It would be preferable if there were no charge for individualmembership, since much of this involves volunteer time. Charges can beassessed for corporation or business membership. 
 I don't think I like the idea of a membership fee very much - atleast I think that any amount mentioned in the survey can be very muchmoney, depending on which country you live in - money which can betterbe spent on other things but not a membership fee for an organisationwhich seems to be not that important to most people. I fear that thiswill reduce membership to those who can and want to afford it. Thiswill have a negative impact on membership numbers from Africa, SouthAmerica and Asia, I think.
 I would like ICANN to publish and make readily available detailedinformation regarding the committee members and candidates, includingtheir past and planned proposals, votes on proposals of others, andtheir philosophical views in general so that I and others can makeinformed decisions when voting.
 I would welcome having a larger voice in ICANN. Re: Possible FeesI would like to know what the costs are presently, and how they arepaid.I would also like to know what percentage of collected fees would beused to cover expenses.I have been trying to obtain my # that I originally received iin themail. I have not been contatced despite numerous requests.Thank you-
 e-mail based at-large membershipno feethank you very much
 This survey does not address main At Large membersh issues, whichhave been aired many times, but which you areunwilling/unable/incapable to address.In the current ICANN dictatorial mood this does not come unexpected.However, do not even think that this crap may be construed as anattempt to inject some democracy into this DoC zombie. It doesn't. The world is far bigger than the USA. Hopefully you'llrize it.Regards
 Discussion of fees is premature outside the context of benefits and services to be provided.  Paying a fee merelyto be 1/1,000,000'th of the electorate doesn't sound attractive.
 open areal offices in western countries and get state-support ormake the international firms pay your service.that surely works.
 I would like to have a serious position in ICANN.
 ICANN has in the past utterly ignored the at-large membership. Ifthey charge for membership, I guess that would entitle us to sue ifthey keep ignoring us.	So, yes, please do charge a fee.
 you don't need to solicit me to join because i already AM amember.
 Let the current leadership go on without hegitation provided youmake sure you always keep us members informed precisely. 
 I must admit that I, like a large number of At-Large members, donot participate in At-Large discussion groups as much as I should.	I do try to keep up with what ICANN is doing and exercise my privilege to vote at every opportunity possible, but as a responsible member of the At-Large group I need to do more to voice my opinion.  After all, that is why the At-Large membership was formulated in the first place.  However, with that said, I do believe that if you start to impose membership fees and other restrictions upon At-Large members (even though I am more than willing to pay with a desire to become more involved) you will inadvertently eliminate those At-Large members that you sought to seek in the first place, mainly a cross section of average to advanced Internet users that wanted to become active in shaping the future direction of the Internet.  Granted, without a decent knowledge on how the Internet actually works, an average user would most likely not be interested in participating in the At-Large membership.  Currently however, you have an elite few (small percentage) of At-Large members that for all practical purposes, whether intentional or not, represent the entire body of the At-Large group.  I am an independent computer consultant and do not have the luxury of travelingto ICANN meetings all around the globe.  Instead I rely uponinformation that I receive via email and what I read from the ICANN web site.  Thus I feel that my voice does not count for much, at least not as muchas I thought it would when I first joined the ICANN AT-Large Membership.  In conclusion, I feel that the more you restrict membership the more elite the percentage of active At-Large members there will be.	Thus it will no longer be a cross section of Internet users that makes up the At-Large membership, but rather only the "high end rollers" (those that can afford to be involved).  And once again, the voice of the "little guy" will not be heard.  But then, that is how BIG BUSINESS works.	Isn't it?  This is just one man's opinion.  One man that would like to make a difference.
 What would be the benefit or privilege of membership for themembership fee? Or is it regarded as donation? This point should beclarifed for many who would consider the membership with fee.
 People should govern the Internet, not business or stateinterests.
 Sir,I had been a member so far and has also took part in the voting lasttime. I had personally not gained anything from it. And still I'd liketo be involved with ICANN. But adding a fee would make me to thinkagain. You cant imagine what what $$ means to a common man in a countrylike India. I would like to make a suggestion. The membership should berestricted/categorized according to the involvement of the individualwith the domain naming and related processes. For example those whohave domain names registerd in their names (Admin/Billing/Technicalcontacts) should be given a better deal of participation. So should thegeneral internet user ; but at a different level. Please consider this.With Best wishes.
 knowledge networks are a rare luxury for the developing world,ICANN has the potential to be a catalyst for many more of that kind ofresource, a reason for being that we can all buy into... 
 Being Fair To both Business and the At Large Community is my goalin participating; I hope that it is the goal of ICANN too.
 I have a strong feeling that you are trying once more to get ridof your "users". I am absolutely outraged by your policy and herewithprotest firmly against any trial to limit membership, be it throughmaking the process as complicated as possible (by requiringre-registering as often as possible)  or by requesting a fee. Frankly,your undemocratic behavior is apalling.
 I think the idea of having to register your name as a domain inorder to participate is wrong. A lot of people have no use for suchdomain since they are well known through their address at theircompany. The money would be much better spend being paid directly toICANN
 I would pay more than $5/year but I think many useful and/orinterested parties in developing countries might not want or be able topay more
 First, ICANN should make sure that members are provided with allthe rights generally accorded to members of non-profit corporations,including the right to know who one another are and to contact them,and communicate with them, outside the control of, or even the view ofthe corporation's management.Second, the at-large should not be an institution of intermittentexistance - it has a role to play at all times not just for elections. And it will never mature as an institution if it is forced to be rebornanew every few years.
 I really wish ICANN to involve as many parsonal computer users aspossible without alienation of the beginners and non-native Englishspeakers like me. In fact, I'm not necessarily willing to pay the feedue to my present financial situation. I believe if I want ICANN to dosomething mentioned above, however, I should not shirk theresponsibility. Thank you.     
 I havn't read anything about the activity of the electedICANN-directors. Are they on duty?
 If you wish to retain any level of respectability (assuming youhave any left anyway), you MUST listen to public opinion on internetnaming issues. Charging to listen to public opinion is well out oforder. You need to listen to INTERNET USERS and particularly people whoknow how the internet works.You definitely DON'T need to listen only to those people who thinktheir opinion is worth paying for.If you charge for something which is basically your moral duty, you'llbe seen more than ever to be driven by corporates, not by "theinternet" you're suppsoed to serve. What does the "C" in ICANN standfor?It's also ridiculous to suggest that you need to charge even $5 permember basically just to maintain an email list and create theoccational web form to collect public / "at large" opinions.Remember, ICANN *CAN* and probably WILL be boycotted if they over-steptheir jurisdiction yet again.
 Please consider posting statistics for this survey on the e-mailforum.
 more availability and participation should be made available. Iwould also like to volunteer for any opportunities to help with ICANN.thank you, Eric Friedman
 In my opinion, ICANN represents a democracy. One should not beforced to pay for his right to vote his representatives. Maybe this isan "american way of democracy", but surely it was not ment that way bytheir Greek inventors. I know that maintaining an institution likeICANN requires money, that's why I'm willing to pay up to ten US$ peryear. But I think, ICANN should be financed by them who earn theirmoney with and through the internet. As long as ICANN has no lobby andno means to accomplish its goals, it will solely remain being anobstacle for the board members with no sense at all.
 Representing the Internet-community can't be only about largecorporations,if the process is to be viewed at all as a business relationship, the"consumers" must have a word in it.  also, the 'net is the only bodywhere everybody hasa chance to publish his ideas, so bodies like ICANN must be democraticin nature.
 At-Large Membership is unique in that it opens part of ICANN tothe general internet users. However I do not believe the At-LargeMembership is effective or representative of the global Membership ofthe Internet. If you do have a commitee please make sure there is acharge for membership; inorder to discourage people from registeringjust to be a member. If the members will be in a position to help steerthe people & policies of ICANN please make sure that no individual orgroup could exploit this for their own good. (an example that has happened before is when thousands of people fromOne University in Asia registered to elect a representative for Asia &Pacific countries) Good luck with finding an even handed andrepresentative membership method. David Ruschinek
 Rather a chargeable website than an At-large membership fee.
 The membership should be organized in national societies, whichare members in the international ICANN. I think it doesn't make sense,if every individual is member in the international ICANN
 I think that it would be good to have at least 2 kind of members:the inner cicle of very active ones and the outer circle of less activevoters... Regards,
 We need democracy on the net.
 If ICANN would like to be democratic they must give theopportunity to read their informations in the five greatest languages(french, spain, german, portugies and chinese ) 
 There is an organization of Individual Domain Name holders withwhom the Committee is well acquainted, I believe.Its website can be found at www.democracy.org.nz/idno/This organization has petitioned for an Individuals' constituency ofthe DNSO since 1998.It would be a good idea to closely observe developements within thisorganization and to build on the work that already has been done.Many of the people involved in the IDNO are people who wish the ICANNto succeed.
 Re Fee: many at-large members are and would be individuals,voluntary groups or small businesses . .. we feel that our web feesshould cover the sort of work that ICANN do . .. so a fee may well putus off joining.
 It is as vital that there be 'at large' control over the governance of the Net as it is that participation in such governance be open to all in a completely unrestricted fashion.  The introduction of any financial hurdle - however small - immediatelyintroduces a barrier to participation and is totally inappropriate.  Any mandated restriction of this type upon participation is alien to the 'at large' concept and is therefore unacceptable.  Altenrative funding methods must be established to facilitatefull and effective 'at large' engagement.  ICANN's credibilitydepends on it. 
 Iam interested in joining At-Large and I will examine your workattentively. Your job is necessary, but the question is how many poeplewill at last pay a fee? Are there enough yet? Which role plays AT LargeICANN in the heads of the people?
 Keep it open and keep it simple.
 1) ICANN must pay enough attention towards the under developedcountries of the world in overall knowledge providing & educating.2) People from under developed & smaller countries like Pakistan shouldspecially be encouraged to participate in ICANN.3) Membership Fees for poor nations should be subsidised.4) Special steps should be taken in policy making for under developedpeople/internet users to give them real sense of participation, as perspirit of "AtLarge" concept.
 I feel that ICANN is taking an unfortunate approach to internetpolicy issues. I doubt that at-large membership can help to alleviatethese problemes, but if this is the only in, i am in.
 @large are the Internet Participants interested in sharing intothe Internet Governance at individual/direct level. They form theICANN/GA and participate already into the DNSO/GA as they should andwill in the ASO/GA and into the PSO/GA. They also participate into thegovernance through dedicated concern constituencies permitting them toshare in a structured and indirect way. As in any organizationworldwide, this results into two BoD electing colleges the directcollege and the indirect college which must get a balanced number ofDirectors. The hijacking of this Internet Participants by the gTLDs andlikely by Verisign resgitrant based and probably WOT oriented as apossible replacement will only lead to unstability and split. TheInternet is the consensus of the Internet Partcipants - and thereforefirst of the @large - to commonly use the TCP/IP protocol set under theIP adressing and naming plan to get their machines pollylogingtogether. Central structuring will not only fail but will lead to adislike or a by-pass of the structurer. This is only the nature of astable social log term consensus. The ALSC current attitude todisregard the nature of a distibuted network system and to consider itas a centalized system - even if the idea of national/regional chapterslook like some meshed system - will only hurt the ICANN and itspartners. People are slow to understand what is going on, but they areno fool. Hijacking them to list their names as (good people) prospectsor (opponents) targets for domain name problems - and to try to makethem pay for that! - will not work for a long. 
 In which direction ICANN moves forward? 
 At-large membership is important to me.
 Because of my job/location, I would not be able to participate ifit required attendance at membership meeting places.  If participationwere possible on-line, I would enjoy the opportunity to provide myinput as an At-Large member.
 I have been involved in UDRP proceedings since early 2000 for theOffice of General Counsel to the NCAA and editor of UDRPlaw.net sinceFeb. 2001.  I would be interested in assisting ICANN with At-Largerepresentation issues. Best of luck with the study.
 Question 3 is vague. Are we talking about a monthly fee, an annualfee or maybe an one time entry only fee? Please ignore my answer toquestion 3 as without this kind of distinction I can't properly answer.
 If there is a fee, I should have the power to vote for myself. Inthat case there is no need for any real leadership, only adecision-supporting 'director' would be needed.
 http://online-magna-charta.net
 It will be a great pleasure to be a part of any body whichcollectively forms policies for regulation of Internet in any form.Please keep up the good effort.
 * In this survey, the fee should be expressed both in Dollars andEuros.* ICANN should be run by the At-Large membership and be aninternational organization. 
 The number of responses you get provides no evidence for thegeneral level of interest in an At Large Membership. Participation needs time andencouragementto grow. The suspension of the At Large Membership after the electionin 2000 achieved the opposite. 
 There should be country level sub-groups for each country having aTLD. Further within the country there should be sub-sub groups withingthe countries representing different geographical zones within thecommunity. This will help in creating a proper structure and thusensuring proper representation to all.
 I am already a member of the original "At Large"(xxx@xxx.com),and took part in the first (and,sadly,up to themoment,ONLY) elections that have taken place. I do believe it's _ofutmost importance_ that the community of Internet Users _do_ have avoice in the running of the Internet. The prevalence and "wonder" ofthe Internet in its first times was due to the "let's do it!" nature ofthe users, and the fact that everybody's voice was heard. Nowadays the"universe" of users on the Internet is too big to be speaking at once,but it's these users who make the greatness of Internet. I believe thatletting all the decisions in the hands of a "few hands" is not wise,and prone to corruption, influence mongering and general ruin of the'Net. No self-elected "oligarchy" (spelling?) has ever resulted in abetter good for everyone (though usually, and that's the problem, doesresult in a better good for them).So, I do believe the opinion of those who have taken the time toexpress it should be given more weight. After all, the situation now isone where the _already existing_ elected At Large members are beingsidelined, and now the ICANN is dancing around them trying to"re-define" the "participation of the Individuals".... but that soundlike if the "individuals" should be thankfull that we are allowed toplay at all... and that's not the case. The Internet was born due tothe vision of a handfull of people, yes, but it become great due to thelittle "push" that every user ever has given it, every new idea to dothings with it, every new empowering use developed. Don't forget that.You have the oportunity to shape the future of a wonderful medium. Butdon't try to do it all on your own, or the mistakes (already severalglaring ones have gone around the world) will be solely blamed on you.And the number of users and, thusly, of people who might blame, isincreasing. Act wisely, and good luck.
 I am overhelmingly disgusted in the way domain issues are beinghandled. ICANN's approval of new domain extensions like .biz and .infowhich overlap into dot-com were a poor attempt to "restock" the shelvesnow that the Internet "Gold Rush" is over. If anyone can put up$50,000.00 to have a new extension approved. ICANN will not stop untilevery word is on the other side of the dot. ICANN is clearly corrupt inmy mind. I thought ICANN was established to protect, preserve andnurture the Internet's addressing system. Is this "At-Large membership"an attempt to distract the public while these crimes continue? Iwonder...The Internet is in it's infancy. 32 million domainsregistered. Far fewer developed websites then registered domains.Thousands dropping daily. NSI holding good domains that expired monthsago. Adding extensions only profits a few, while distroying the soundnavigational structure that was established and working well. I thoughtICANN was there to protect this existing structure. Now it appearsICANN makes a profit from domain disputes and approving pathetic newextensions only ensures these dispute profits continue.  Is ICANNfooling anyone? Is NSI fooling anyone? I thought the US Government gavethe Internet to the people to use. And the domains on a first comebasis. The only "demand" for new extensions is in profits forregistrars and dispute profits for ICANN. This is my understanding andI don't think I'm alone in this perception. I WISH the government wasrunning this as it's become a big profitable game while the intendednavigational abilities of the Internet are distroyed for us all. I hopethis is not "smoke and mirrors" ICANN. I pray someone will stop youfrom doing the wrong thing and get some gevernmental body in charge ofprotecting the Internet so the world can connect and benefit as neverbefore. How about approving dot-CON because your not fooling anyone.Dot-biz, Dot-info WHAT A JOKE!!!!!! WHAT DO YOU THINK DOT COM IS??? TheInternet IS a BUSINESS of sharing INFORMATION. I continue to appeal toDonald Evens to STOP THE NONSENSE! Any more extensions and we mine aswell use the NUMBERS that the Letters were asigned. Approve .cat, .dog,.fish, .car JUST KEEP IT UP ICANN. Keep those dispute profits rollingin at the worlds expense! Your forcing us into a "Keyword" system whichDot-com currently IS as the "default". Is this your intention? Is ICANNgetting a payoff from Realnames, MSN, AOL?  We paid good money toregister our dot-com domains with the understanding that we could buildon this practical navigational foundation. WHY are you here distroyingwhat you claim to be regulating??? Let's address the REAL motives andissues here! I'll write every media and government till I get thisanswer. Someone has to protent the Internet. Somehow I don't think itwill be ICANN! Prove me wrong. PLEASE!!!!! I'll join, but will it doany good at all? Or is this just a way to rake in another few dollarswhile you work to ruin something wonderful for a profit. .coop, .museumYOU WOULD ACTUALLY INTERTAIN THIS NONSENSE??????? I'll give you $50,000for .nonsense how's that? STOP IT ICANN!!!!!! NO - MORE - NEW - DOMAINS  You have done enough damage. We don't want to have to dependon search engines for navigation. Enough Trade Mark dilution anddisputs. ENOUGH!!! Do the RIGHT thing people!!!!!!
 I don't see why users should pay for such an installment. Thereare plenty of rich firms making a lot of money on the net, they shouldgive willingly to ensure future developments.
 Two years thinking about the At-Large structure, and stillthinking....  Will this ever become something real?
 What sort of 'democratic' participation would this be, if only themonetarygifted can participate...?Didn't you think of all the developing countries, that are alreadyunderrepresentedin the ICANN? Isn't there a chance to build up ICANN as a democraticorganisation that is NOT dominated by the industrial conutries?
 There has always been a concern regarding people who do not haveany direct access to computers etc.etc. and they need a voice torepresent and bring their concerns forward and I believe that I, as aSocial Worker, can bring these concerns to the Committee.
 There should not be any fee if the only right that a membershipconfers is the right to vote for a committee representative.
 I would become a member, but only if it would be clear to me whatI could do as a member?!
 Will Ican represent the Comunity or just those who can afford thefee?
 As the Bertelsmann Foundation's Director Media Policy, we haveanalyzed the ICANN process and initiated the projectwww.democratic-internet.deSome form of "at-large"-representation seems to be extremely importantto secure ICANN's functioning as a global and representative body.
 Concerning the fee, i think in the us, western europe and someparts of asia the amount of fee is not a problem. But it would be inthe rest of the world. You should consider different fees, according tothe country of origin.
 I think that the mechanisms for involvement of at-large members inpolicy discussions need to be improved.  They could be based on a morestructured approach to issues and related considerations such asoptions and their expected impacts.
 I _think_ I'm already an at-large member, but I've received veryfew mailings - could be another email address, but would be@xxx.com  Reg fee might be good.	Would want to know in detail where it goes.
 This is taking way too long...Get on with it!
 We ask potential At-Large members what they would be willing topay annually, but FAIL to discuss what benefits they might receive inexchange for the annual membership fee. I f all I am paying for ismaintaining my name in a data base, then I would be extremelyaltruistic to pay more than $5 -- but if we structured a program forAt-Large members that offered specific benefits in exchange for theregular input (message boards, e-mail newsletters an online magazine,an opportunity to purchase ICANN branded items not available tonon-members, etc., etc.) then I think we could anticipate a fee closerto the $25 range. There needs to be a cost/benefit analysis -- and Iwould recommend doing some focus groups with At-Large members todetermine what they anticipate getting out of their At-Lagremembership.
 if you should take a fee for the memebership, does that mean, thatonly those who payed the fee may vote for the directors? do you thinkthat´s democratic?
 It's a big deal to interest end users in Internet development. Iwant to be among those
 It is important that the fees remain reasonable, so that votingdoes not become limited to only those who can pay.
 Having been exposed to - apparently - random decisions by nationalregistration bodies for years without having any influence on their dealings (apart from paying for them), I think it is very important toallow a small influence to  the community of domain users.
 no
 I am prepared to pay a fee but only if everything else fails.
 My image is ICANN working under many Volunteers and muchDonations, what is your consumption plan ?
 I do understand the issue uf verifying the identity and the costsinvolved.But limiting membership in any form, be it to holders of domains orwith a feeis the wrong signal. ICANN at large should not be about every singleuserof the net. 
 The www involves the entire world.  It is essential that a broadspectrum of users at large be involved in its continuning development.
 I would like a voice in ICANN. In addition, I am a professionalmediator, and would offer my services.In addition, I am a publisher of a small magazine and would disseminateas appropriate.
 I perceive ICANN to be exremely closed and uninterested in atlarge input.  In the year that I have been an at large member much hasbeen done by ICANN but as an at large member I have not been surveyedor queried on any issue.  I have not received any education on theissues ICANN must decide upon.	I believe that ICANN wishes the atlarge members would go away and have no voice.
 I am (was?) and at large member under the previous model.
 I believe the At-Large membership has been vasty underutilized.Because of it's size and low barriers to entry, the At-Large group is agreat cross-section of the internet community as a whole. ICANN useslocation as a limiting factor for participation. This is especaillydisappointing since the internet can make location irrelevent.
 The process should informed, but subject to that constraint,democratice
	Thank you for asking for our input. I hope we can work to keepICANN as democratic & uncommercial as possible.
 Hi,Please consider rewording question three. I suggest that the feelingsof a significant proportion of the At Large are not represented and mayfeel alienated. Many are not willing to pay any fee yet if a fee wascharged, those that feel it is important to participate must paywhatever fee that ICANN determines. Please consider rephrasing whilekeeping in mind that in some countries $5 is sufficient to buy anentire family meal.kind regards,
 ICANN should be representative of the will of the public, andtherefore should allow any interested individuals to become at-largemembers (without any fee!).  At-large members should participate in allmajor ICANN decisions.	I hope you do decide to allow large-scalemembership, and significant participation in ICANN decisions.
 Keeping a fee for membership will restrict unwanted entries. Butmake sure that is reasonable amount.
 I already registered for an At-Large membership (2000-04) andparticipated in the election of the German At-Large Director. It seemsstrange that even after the first At-Large Directors have been elected,the question is raised what will happen if "ICANN moves forward with anAt-large membership".
 ICANN, without the at-large membership, and the board members itis to elect (9 in number) would not be what it was envisioned to be.
 Available detailed information about the ICANN leadership andDirectors decisions and opinions is a prerequisite for those who vote.
 I thought I alrady was an at-large member
 The question of fees cannot be separated from the question of thedegree of meaningful representation being offered.  Electing theoriginally planned number of Board members --half -- is worthsomething.  Electing a minority that can be overrrun by the corpratistand perhaps unelected (as present) Board members is not worth much ifanything. Thus, question three is asking a question too abstract toanswer meaningfully.
 I feel that a $5 fee is extremely high for an online registration.There cannot possibly be even $5 in bandwidth and computing costs forone single registration. If I had to pay $1 or $2, that would bereasonable. If I had a detailed breakdown of costs that showed that $Xwas the real cost, then I would be willing to pay up to $15 or $20.
 I would like to participate more actively, tell me how and I willjoin in :o)
 Membership's should parallel internet uses. Closely match searchengine inquiries.
 It is important for there to be international internet dialogue.
 It is important for there to be international internet dialogue.
 Please make your fee a "sliding scale" format, as many people inpoor countries may not have even $5 US and should not be banned fromparticipating simply because they're poor.Thank you!
 you need to convert the board of ICANN to 100% at large electedmembership, as promised.  you also need to reform the UDRP to removethe appearence and actuality of bias from it.
 What happened to the original At-Large membership?
 The time required from grassroots members to participate in the decision making process should not be too large.
 It is very important that ICANN have representation from thegeneral public, especially when establishing policy that affectsInternet users world-wide.  At-Large membership should be able tobalance corporate and governmental interests in this forum.
 At-large membership is key to keeping the interests of ICANN inline with the interests of the Internet community as a whole.
 Just keep the fee so it coveres the costs and I'm ok with it. Start making money off this Fee and I'll be disapointed.
 If a fee is requested fpr teh membership, I want to see finincialstatements (or similiar) every year.
 Personally, I don't understand why only corporate and governmentbodies should decide over Internet issues. The five directors we votedon in 2000 don't really have much power over the decision process. I'msomewhat disappointed.
 I belive charging a fee would severly limit the number of peopleinvolved in the decision making process. If the goal is to allowgovership by the rich and corporations, rather then the masses thencharging a fee is the means to that end.
 The Internet is for everyone.  Those who wish to help make it abetter place for all should not be forced to pay for that privelege. As a US Citizen, and know that the Internet started in the US, and thatICANN is based in the US, I find it absurd that anyone would wish tocharge people for the right to vote on important issues. Now that the Internet has gained widespread popularity and use, manyissues are coming up that people did not expect when it was firstbuilt, or even just a few years ago.  Those who can and wish to helpmake sure that it will still be a free place for ideas and peopleshould not be forced to pay a tax just to have their opinions renderedvalid.
 I am already an at large member, but seem to have been excludedfrom the system while my computer was down.
 I understand that there will be costs involved with membership -but please try to keep them as low as possible, there are many peoplewho can't afford it. I could, but I choosed the last button above tomake it clear that my opinion is, that there should be no fee at all,to make election a real democratic process. TIA
 Perhaps if the At-Large membership votes had more weight in thedecision-making process, I would be more inclined to pay a fee formembership. As things stand now, I feel the opinions of the At-Largemembership are only given marginal consideration.
 the first election some time ago was a good start
 the problem of participation is that most meetings are very faraway from me and I have not enough time and money.
 We (you) have the opportunity to develop the most democratic andparticipant involved process in the history of the world. Now is thetime to take the bold step forward to be INCLUSIVE in membership,versus the norm of exclusion. ICANN, utilizing an At Large communitycan further connect the world beyond what we see today. Best of Luck inthis endevour and I will alwys be here for any other input/feedback.
 If a fee is needed, it should be high enough to avoid "passive"memberships (My thought is: "If I pay, maybe I'm really interested injoining ICANN"). If I pay, I want to vote.
 If the introduction of membership fees is combined with some kindof prominent knowledge communicated to the members or the like, payingthis fee becomes more attractive. Mere invitations to meetings takingplace in far-off countries in the world, which hardly anybody can everattend, is not enough and has to be qualitatively enhanced. This mightinclude a change of the ways to take part in the decision makongprocesses.
 This is a good way of keeping the general public involved in ICANNdecisions.
 I am very interested in participating in the community and withICANN as it continues to develop, please keep me informed.
 So far, it's seemed to me that there have not been manyopportunities for the rank-and-file to participate in ICANN.  I'minterested in your improvements in this area.
 ICANN at-large membership is a vital aspect of the organizationand should be allowed to flourish, fee - free. Meetings should be heldlocally as well as internationally; the needs of the internet communityare not being addressed by international conferences in exotic ( or atleast foreign ) locales. The importance of this organiziation isparamount. Perhaps the time is ripe to ask for supportive funds, butthe cost should be shared by users through internet service providers.
 Only individuals should have the capability to join ICANN. See theopennic manifesto for the concept. http://www.opennnic.unrated.net
 If ICAN is to be an international membership it is better toaddopt an internalization scheme so that members cans communicate withthe Body in each their own language. If you need translators, I canoffer my services for English to French as a contribution toward theinternational recognition of ICANN.Bertrand D. BeaudoinSherbrooke Qc Ca
 There need to be NINE board positions elected by the At Largemembership.  Membership in the At Large group should NOT be restrictedto domain holders.  And there should be NO fees so that those in thepoorer countries can also be members.
 This might become the hugest global democratic organisation. It'sin your hands to what extent the dream of equal participation becomesreality in less gifted areas than ours.
 I always thought about the at-large membership as a means of moreor less active participation in a democratic world-wide body. The ideaof charging voters for willing to take democratic responsibilities is -mildly speaking - rather strange. Living in one of the richer countriesaround the globe and having a well-paid job, I myself don't believethat a small fee would result in my kids being hungry for a week ortwo. But I understand that there are lots of people around the world towhom such a fee would mean the end of their membership. The resultwould be an even wider gap between internet users of the rich "west"and ones from so called third world countries.If At-Large really wants to be a democratic body more or lessrepresenting the common internet user  no matter where she or he comesfrom it should make any move possible to prevent steps like these, orotherwise it might as well quit. We really don't need anotherorganisation claiming to be democratic but in reality only representingthe wealthy ones.Btw: question #3 speaks about fees; but is that once, yearly,monthly,... ? Strange question, really...
 I think membership fees should be optional. I would contribute andwould expect to be encouraged to help cover some of the expences;however I would not support excluding anyone's input based on theirability or willingness to provide financal support! That would be nodifferent than the "Poll Taxes" imposed (and since eradicated) in anearlier era of US history.
 I am an at Large member, but received nothing in the way ofnotices or requests in the past 6 months.
 It is important to ensure the widest possible range of efforts toensure that everyone is properly informed about all aspects of a matterbefore any votes are taken. At this time, I receive very littleinformation from your organization and I feel that I am not up-to-dateon what's going on. Thanks, --Sam.
 I am already an at-large member.  If paying for membership allowsICANN to operate more democratically with fewer conflicts of interest,then I am all for it.
 Dear Committee,pase take note that it may be very helpfull to give options on how topay the membership (others than Visa and Mastercard).Kind regards.
 I share the view that wide and relatively free membership isdesirable.  There are barriers of knowledge and the limited time thatmost people have to devote to this activity.  These are far more costlyto members than the dollar fee.  There is a perception that too many of the levers that give rise to thefuture are controlled by a financial gateway.  Those without financialpower are firstly excluded.  Then those that are left make decisions. If that's the case, you can see all around you the sort of world youget.  A world that creates membership barriers that prevent people frommaking the best use of their talents and abilities.  Barriers to entry. Barriers to membership.  Failure to take seriously the position of the"outsider" even though that outsider may have been invited to offer anopinion.  (Thanks very much but according to "our" existing values"your" opinion has no value.) Those with financial power maintain their power by manipulation of thesystem in their own favour.  This is perfectly "normal" in mostsocieties.  "I am in business because I have the ability to bias thechances of success, because I can tilt the playing field in my ownfavour," as one successful NZ businessman recently explained.  Look atwhat Enron did, making sure that all rivers led to Enron buy purchasingthe right to special consultation and consideration.  I can’t be surehow that is seen in the USA, but in NZ and in most parts of the worldit’s seen as non-democratic and visibly corrupt. In ICANN every veryeffort needs to be made to establish a grass roots membership base thatis free from that type of manipulation.  I don't know how to do that, Idoubt that anyone does, this is new territory.	What ICANN needs to dois run with the principle of establishing an at large membership withthe widest possible base.  Where that principle leads us, we cannot besure.  Trust the democratic process.  The problem may already be that the key members of ICANN already havestrong commitments to certain outcomes that are best achieved if theycan maintain some sort of control.  Wide membership with power toaffect the outcome, any form of real democracy, threatens the interestsof some major players in ICANN.  That's not a new problem, it's aproblem that the political system in the USA faces every day.  It's aproblem in most public companies.  It's even a problem in littlerelatively democratic countries like New Zealand.  There are no perfectanswers.  The best ICANN can do is commit to a direction thatencourages democratic participation.  Barriers to participation will beseen as an attempt to "steal" the Internet by a small group of selfappointed power brokers.  That charge has already been made.  I don’t think I’ve said anything new here.   I hope that many otherpeople are saying similar things.  As an Internet user at the very bottom of the ladder, I have nointerest except to see the Internet grow as a source of data and as aplace that allows easy person to person contact.   Sadly abuse of theInternet by people with grass roots membership, those who send spanemail to thousands of addresses, threaten to destroy email as a meansof communication that anyone will choose to use.   I’ve had several websites which make my email address public.  These sites have beensearched for valid email addresses, and I get a lot of spam.   80 to100 spam letters a day is common.  My defence is to close those emailaddresses permanently.	 Efforts so far to address this problem seen tohave only made it worse. 
 The At-Large members should have a meaningful input into theworkings and thinking of ICANN, they shouldn't be ignored because theirthinking differs from what the board like the look of at the time.
 NINE board of directors for At LargeNO domain holder requirementRe fees:  voluntary or sliding scale, or just take a sliver out ofICANN's legal and PR payables - that should cover it no problem.
  I am registered under another email account for ICANN voting foratlarge representation. I would like to know the amount of financial support ICANN recieves from its organizational members and how thistranslates into representation on the board. 
 I thought we already at At-Large Membership! Has it been annulled?In any case, if there is to be a fee, it should be the same per person,and available only to individuals. If a corporation wantsrepresentation, it should have individual employees enroll, and pay thesame per-person rates everyone else does. Otherwise, there's the riskof "big names" with big money "accidentally" carrying more real weightthan individuals.However, I don't see why At-Large Membership should cost anything thatisn't covered by the TLD registries' fees to ICANN anyway. Beingrepresentative is one of the responsibilities of ICANN, not a bonus tothose of us willing to pay ...
 Membership simply for the purpose of periodic voting on a directoris not likely to result in participation.  I suggest a more substantialrole for members--participation in on-line discussions with the boardon the various issues presented to the board for resolution, with the membership being polled before board votes so the board may know the membership's consensus before the board acts.
 What do you mean "if" ICANN moves forward with an At-largemembership.  ICANN is supposed to have an elected board includingat-large board members.  Who do you want to elect them?
 add    Chinese homepage
 ICANN MAY CONSIDER DIFFERENT FEE LEVELS DEPENDENT WHETHER THEINDIVIDUAL IS WORKING FOR A PROVIDER OF SYSTEMS/SOLUTIONS, A USER,RETIRED OR A STUDENT.ANOTHER POSSIBLE WAY OF FUNDING IS PART OF THE ISOC DUES OR HAVE MAJORCORPORATIONS (CISCO, NORTEL, ATT, NTT, ETC.) FUND ICANN.
 If I'm expected to pay to remain an At-Large member, I wouldexpect to see the representation by the elected members of the ICANNboard brought on par with the other interests by means of an equal,proportionate, share of votes on the board.
 I believe the fee is reasonable for a committed individual who isinterested inparticipating with overall policies. The membership ought to be openand democraticfor the individual(s) therefore the fee level should be reasonable. As an individual who happens to co-produce a public service,non-profit, educational and culturalsite that doesn't generate any income, I would like to continue myparticipation with ICANN and At-Large.Thank you.
 I would be willing to pay, but I would be willing to do so onlywith the understanding that the At-Large membership and therepresentatives that they vote for on the ICANN board have an actualand real ability to affect policy. I have my doubts about whether thisis currently the case, and I would like to make sure that my concernsabout the way ICANN has handled the various new top-level domains woudlactually be voiced and dealt with. Many of us who are smaller domainowners certainly feel that we have less of a say than those domainowners who can send a pack of lawyers and lobbyists on their behalf.
 I would like ICANN to make itself more visible to public.
 There's tons of money being made with the current fee structurefor internet domain registration.  Some of those profits should bediverted to the cost of administering the domains.
 Membership at present is on a world-wide scale. Interaction withina particular country or region is virtually nil. Even as we interactonline, we are real people who can meet to share views and experiencesin the real world. Can a network of cells be set up in for regions orcountries where there are significant number of members?Note: Any membership fee should be kept at the absolute minimum.Internet registration companies that are making millions should be ableto help absorb the costs.
 I believe that the only constituency that ICANN should serve isthe public, and that the current policy of regarding special interestssuch as businesses, registrars, and intellectual property holders ascore constituencies is anti-democratic.  I believe that ICANN muststrive to be more democratic and transparent in its operations.  If afee was charged for at-large membership I would probably pay it as longas it was low just to make sure that I had a voice, but I would notapprove of it, as it would amount to a regressive poll tax which andwould create an additional barrier to democratic governance of theInternet.
 There must be mechanism for Internet users like myself to make ourvoices heard. I do not believe national governments have representedmy interests. Corporate interests certainly have not.
 ICANN should not function in a vacuum.  There should be input fromthe Internet community for all of ICANN's area of responsibilities.
 I would like to appreciate the ICANN effort in uniforming the NETworld, but the organisation should function democratically withtransparency, accountability for the public. If this can achieved thaneverything could be easily possible.Wish you all success
 I believe that this "fee" is a sham; and that the only reason I'mcurrently working within the system is to attempt to bring about thisunexcusable excuse of a system back  to the reason andcommunity-mindedness that the Internet used to be. My god, a *fee*, forbeing a member of a group who's directorship is riddled with a minorityof elected members, and with a majority whose reasons for participatingcan at best be called questionable? You must be insane.
 The fee should be set to cover all out-of-pocket expenses incurredby ICANN to provide for the At-large membership, plus a little tohelp cover general overhead.  I would also recommend that At-largemembers also own an active domain name; given the rise in name spacessuch as .info and .name, this should not represent a overburdensome"poll tax."
 I believe the At Large membership is essential to the developmentof future development of the internet.	ICANN can set the standard forat large membership that could be applied to other organizationalstructures.  Because ICANN is responsible for laying down thefoundation of the internet - it is crucial that a body such as the atlarge membership be involved in a form of represenation.  This not onlyincludes the US - but EVERY country that agrees to follow the standardsand practices that are building the foundation of the internet. 
 At-Large membership is a useful concept for organizations thathavetop-level dealings with the internet concept as a whole.Generally, most decision making is done by a small group of peoplethat may be insulated from the bigger picture. They have a good senseof the activities being carried out, but lack the raw unfilteredfield data which is so necessary to the decision process.At-Large membership provides this by representing a source of datafrom individuals that are of diverse skills and backgrounds but havea common factor, that being the internet.One can characterize the At-Large membership component as similar toFocus Groups, except the At-Large group is more technically aware thanthe usual run-of-the-mill focus group which is created to representa broad population base.Being an analyst myself, I must confess to being intrigued that anorganization like ICANN would consider actually asking the great"unwashed internet population" for their ideas.  A rather novel approach and exceptionally brilliant.Regards,
 Democracy is something to be nurtured and developed, and is alaudable goal of anyone structuring a governing organization. Measuring interest-level of the public is certainly appropriate formaking marketing decisions in a business organization.	When it comesto decisions about the structure of an organization with power overpublic policy, a survey should strive for something more important.  Somy hope is that this survey will be used to help implement abroad-based democratic system of Internet governace rather than to makea decision as whether to have user participation as any thing more thana token element.  Think big!  And thanks for undertaking this importantjob.
 I am very interested in getting more involved with ICANN.	Sincerely,
 For better to the internet, you must think of the third countryand their economy.
 I do not deem ownership of an active web site to be a requirementfor participation as an At-Large member.
 The ICANN Board should be constituted with representatives electedby and representing demarcated interest groups viz. consumers, domainname owners, users, businesses, all national governments, etc., witheach member named (whether an individual or an organsation) having aright to cast one vote. Such representation should be in a manner thatdoes not allow any single group to monopolize ICANN's policies.Further, ICANN's constitution should not be allowed to amended unless4/5th of the Board votes in favour of an amendment, followed by areferendum conducted amongst the members.
 If we pay a fee, then it is essential that ICANN gives us ameaningful role.  Window dressing is not good enough!
 I feel that At-Large membership should be free, though.
 Paying a fee isnt a problem by itself. But it moves what could besome 'world wide democratic experiment' to 'just another Select-Club'.Anyway, we both know that all of this is mostly crap.Four lines of text wouldnt be enough to say it. I wish good luck to thefew people that were elected by popular votes. The aspirations ofpeoples are so different that what ICANN is doing...
 In case of a fee: what benefits would I get for it?
  I am an assisstant expert  in Telecommunication Authority of TheRepublic  of Turkey. I am  studying on	ICANN. So  I want  to	take place  in all  ICANN activities.
 I think technologies involved are changed fast, and perhaps, threeyears are a lot of time. I think it's better two year period.
 At large membership should be regarded as part of ICANNs normaloperation. Hence an at large membership fee is not the right way tofund this activity.
 As soon as costs are involved this idea gets absurd. Would youbelievein a country the government of which is elected only by thosepeople being able to pay for their vote? 
 I have been very disapointed with the At-Large membership of ICANNso far. I am under the impression that you guys do anything you can NOTto take into account the opinion of domain owners (e.g. introduce dozenof surveys without clear purposes). Despite the fact that you existONLY to serve us (there would be no need for ICANN if not for domainowners).
 The less wordy incomming messages are, the easier it is to respondimmediately rather than defer till later.  Unfortunately "latersometimes never comes".
 I hope that the annual subscription can be paid by other meansover and above the use of credit cards, as many of us in Africa do notposses credit cards.
 Think about having to pay if you want to elect the government orpresident of your country?
 I dislike the language of all ICANN correspondence. Are there onlylawyers and jurisprudencial professors?Make it easier to read!
 I am sure ICANN and the At-Large membership serve those peoplewell (or at least tries to) who are already informed to some extent andinterested, but I am intrigued to see how it would try to expand to areal 'at large' membership.
 There is a very interesting project from the BertelsmannFoundation  about which I would like to inform the Commitee:www.democratic-internet.de 
 Recieving this survey, I am a bit surprised, as I am alreadyregistered.
 I believe you need an explicit privacy statement on the formand/or the website
 please consider that for members in not industrilised countriesand for pupils/students, e.g., fees may be an important reason for not joining you; with an effectlike "globalisation of the Commonwealth already dominating ideologies by exclusion of theothers"
 i believe in icannwork w/ very little topic granularity to get more inputspearhaps a form like this one is the best way to get inputsthen send reports (statistics) about the inputsdon't loose heart we get it works !
 I consider a participation of members in decision making fornecessary but the more time a memebership consumes the less it will beactively promoted. technical committees elected by ICANN members (orjust all interested users) should be involved, only. Committee membersmust not be representatives of purely profit orineted e-commerceorganisations, such as IBM, microsoft, HP, ...	 
 At Large membership should be simple. I registered for At Largemembership last time round - but because I couldn't select my ownusername and password, I never voted. If the Internet community (ieusers, companies with web sites, etc - not just ISPs and largecorporates) is not involved in ICANN decision making, ICANN will (in myopinion) become ignored. 
     It should be recommended to ask for membership with people fromrelevant NGO's and groups working in NIP's areas.
 ICANN should not be controlled only by for-profit organisations(eg. ISPs who have registered a huge number of domains) or a fewcountries.At-Large Membership, open to everyone interested in the advancement ofthe Internet, would be a democratic way to involve the public.
 the goal should be to keep the attention of internet users beyondcorporate interest. This involvement should be free for all users 
 While I understand that ICANN needs some source of income I don'tlike the idea of a general membership fee not too much as this wouldkeep people from poor countries out of ICANN.
 I understand the need for the At-Large 'organisation' to cover itscosts, but do feel that this will be a major impedement toparticipation outside of the first world. The developing/third world isalready largely on the 'wrong side' of the digital divide, and thiswill not make it any better. Even $5 may not sound like a lot (and Ipersonally could afford it) but this is still large amount of money formany. Futher, complex mechanisms will be needed to pay/collect whichare unavilable to many who sh/could participate.
 If At-Large membership proceeds, there will have to be some sortof check or balance to ensure that corporations do not employ fakegrass-roots representation in order to persue their goals.If At-Large membership is not enfranchised, the same fears will bepresent, but with no accountability these fears will not be allayed.This _will_ be a major factor in a split-the-namespace situation.
 If I was asked to pay for At-Large membership I would require somesort of evidence/promise that my participation would make an activedifference. Since signing up and voting in the At-Large elections Ihave received very little communication from ICANN and seen very littleevidence that the organisation cares about my views in any way. Why notsave yourself the costs of setting up a separate unit to run theAt-Large membership and join forces with an already developedorganisation like the Internet Society? Despite being an active andvocal member of the internet community, as things stand at the moment Iwould not consider funding ICANN in any way. If you require people topay then you MUST become more open and accountable.
 I understand that the expenses of ICANN have to be paid.The selling of domain names has to fill the budget.
 Annual Country based ICANN Forum's or Workshops requested
 It would be a great shame, if ordinary users were required to paya fee in order to be involved in the ICANN decision making process andto be involved in ICANN elections. 
 Keep the Internet a Place Free from National Laws and Egoisms!Protect the Privacy of all Netizens!
 All conferences should be online since many members can not go tojoin in the conference since it costs a lot.
 I participate only if At-large Director numbers is sufficient tohave a meaningful influence
 I recive a letter (post by normal mail to my home) with a specialCode to be a Member of the ICANN Board Committe, but I have to traveland lost the paper.I supose I am include in that special level but not confirme myparticipation. What should I do? Thank you very much.Sincerely:
 This is very important step in the right direction, At-Largeshould be a self financed nonprofit organization. in order for it to befree of governments control.
 The membership shoulb be cost-free at all, because it has rightsand duties similar to those of a proper government. And the nature ofdemocracy is that it must be open for everyone!
 Although I would personally be willing to pay a symbolic fee, I amconvinced that membership to ICANN At-Large and participation toelections, votes and surveys should be freed from any financial duesbecause puts the organization into an questionable light ("those whopay rule"). Financial support should rather be sought throughgovernmental support programs, reselling of surveys and proceedings,conferences and participation to core groups (where corporateinstitutions have an obvious financial interest).It is imperative that the At-Large community isn't used as a pro-formainstitution with no power of decision or influence. One of ICANNsprimary tasks at this stage is to find out a structure wheregovernments, internet businesses and consumers all have a direct (!)power of decision in all major issues to be decided upon by ICANN.
 For me, a fee would be OK. I however belive that with a fee wewill be limiting membership ti those who can afford it. There are alotof countries where you can eat for one month for 5$ ...Sad but true.
 What about the ICANN memberships for the last vote? 
 none at this time
 Please have a look at the Bertelsmann Foundation project:  www.democratic-internet.de
 The At-large membership should be better mobilised than itcurrently is.  There are many people out there who are willing and ableto invest the time and have significant constructive comments that willbe of use to ICANN.
 the at-large member participation is a cornerstone of theconsensus reached to establish ICANN in the first place.it is essential that at-large board members be installed as the othergroups do not represent the interests that the at-large participantswere intended to represent.i am not in favor of a fee for participation as an at-large member. however if a fee is imposed i will participate and pay the fee.the mechanism for determining the fee needs careful consideration sincethe costs of running the at-large membership is almost independent ofthe number of participants.  therefore a low fee would recover thiscost and have the highest possible participation.  a fee percieved tobe too high will lower participation causing whatever costs areassigned to at-large membership to be spread over fewer participants.since there are policy decision of ICANN that affect persons who do nothave any business or domain name or other indication, i am opposed toany qualification to become a "citizen" of the at-large group.	theinterests of internet participants of all types was envisioned at theoriginal inception of ICANN and should be preserved.  since ICANNpolicies do determine the entrance of competition and the viability ofcompetition, it is desirable to include all users as "citizens" of theat-large membership.  phone companies and those who think like phonecompanies desire to control the Internet and meter usage and access andprovide "quality of service" or other delivery enhancements andfundamentally share the shared and best effort delivery we are nowaccustomed to.	media companies would also like to have policies thatwould meter quality of service so that they could cause large users tohave better service than small users.	it is this interest that is notand cannot be represented by the other membership groups of ICANN.  i encourage the at-large study committee to recommend the largestpossible participation in the at-large membership and to remind theboard that their obligation to include substantial power to theat-large division was the concensus-building compromise that allowedthe orderly transition of policy-making authority to ICANN.  it is notgood to back away from this agreement because it will leave forever amistrust of the legitimacy of ICANN.  the fears expressed by the Boardof ICANN that the at-large membership will be disruptive is unfoundedon its face and new technology such as the Internet itself is thedisruptive force...to permit the established communication companyinterests to control ICANN is to delay the benefits to the generalworld population of a free-expression internet with equal access forall ideas and information regardless of originating company orindividual.  concentrating power in divisions of ICANN controlled bymedia, communications companies, and governments is not in the bestinterests of the large unaffiliated group of persons the at-largemembers represent.thank you for the work of the at-large committee and for your effortsto keep the at-large concept alive.  please don't compromise theat-large member's power away.
 I like to get Information.I want to vote for the directors.But i cant see any reason, to pay any fee for it (i´m a teacher forindustrial design). 
 I am (as far as I know) already an At Large member. So what does"If ICANN moves forward with an At-large membership" mean? Has theoriginal At Large membership been discontinued? If so why wasn't Iinformed?If there is to be payment for At Large mebership ICANN will have to beconsiderably better at informing members what is going on within theorganisation. At present I have literally no idea what it means to bean At Large member. I found out about this survey through readingSlashdot - don't you think that a simple mailout would have helpedinform me of your activities.Quite frankly I am disappointed with the ICANN At Large concept as itstands so far - it would be extremely difficult to persuade me to partwiht money without some pretty major assurances of what it will be usedfor and how my involvement with ICANN can actually count for something.
 The concerns of the existing at-large membership, including myown, have been ignored until now.  Why is there any reason to thinkthat grass roots opinion will have any gretaer impact in the future. Icann, in general, like its UDRP, seems much more concerned with therights of business and other vested interests rather than with therights of individuals.	I would like to see some evidence of a shift inthis attitude before I agree to give any funding to ICANN to supportpolicies and attitudes with which I strongly disagree.
 I think you need to be very careful to make sure that all parts ofthe community are represented and that if a fee in any way reduces thatpossibility it should be waived.
 To me, asking a fee for At-Large membership sounds like gettingrid ofthe last democratic aspects of ICANN. Give a voice only to peoplewilling to give $$$! In fact, already today it seems to me the bigplayerswith lots of $$$ have nearly 100% control of ICANN.
 I am (was) a registered at-large member but have not participatedbecause the security procedures are far too cumbersome.
 A fee would exclude people, because at least everyone with aninternet connection has the right to become an At-Large member.
 Mainly interested in keeping the Internet as free as possible.Interested in the expansion of possible DSN, esp. the DOTpersonalname.
 With the thought that the Internet can possibly provide the "road"for more democratic decision making - hopefully in many areas of globalimportance - I believe and am glad to see that at least yr efforts aretowards this area of keeping the most-people involved/updated and hopethat this effort will prevail in the future. 
 At Large Membership should be continuous and terminated only uponresignation of Member or notice by ICANN. Current system of annualmembership and annual re-application is unsatisfactory, cumbersome andtedious, both for ICANN and its members. I received my membershipelectronic PIN on July 28, 2000 and was unaware that my membershipautomatically expired after 1 year.
 Please remove the board squatters immediately and hold electionsfor the seats they have been holding.
 I would enjoy takeing part in an aspect of critical developmentconserning the Internet and ICANN.  I feel that such a privalage wouldhelp both my career and insight.
 Internet Governance is an ought. 
 I've tried and failed to vote online previously. Have you folkssorted out the technical glitches in your online collaboration tools?
 Pay for membership is a bad idea.	I refer the At-Large Studycommittee to the lengthy debate in the ALSC email forum.
 The At-Large Community needs a strong voice on the board that isconsistent with the initial vision of ICANN -- half of the board seatsmust be given to the Internet community as a whole to vote by publicelection.  I would personally be willing to pay for an ICANN membership(noting that doing so should ensure some value for money -- if I pay tobe a member I expect a strong and meaningful voice in the process), Ihave concerns about the impact on people from developing countries. These costs are significant for many people -- all deserve a voice onICANN and financial constraints must never be a limitation to theirparticipation.
 I thought I already was an at-large member (#271193) -- else whatwas I doing voting in 2000-Oct?  
 No fee for a membership!
 The at-large membership is an important balance to corporatepressures to turn the internet into a fee-for-service entertainmentmedium.  It's vital that individuals have a real part in policy making.
 I think the great interest of the internet is sharing for FREE theinformation. In this way, adding some cost to participate to the ICANNis really bad in that it is one more limit for wide participation ofthe internet users to the At-Large participation.
 The problem is not in the money, but in the principle. 
 I am still no clear how at-large members can participant indecision making. i think that some anti-spam rules would be useful.Also he ability to turn of unwanted email that keeps coming.H Leon Bradlow
 make it sponsored
 What happens to the costs I already pay as a user of the internet? Domain name fees, ISP fees, etc.  This seems more like a tax or abribe for membership in a group I should be included in anyway.
 Forcing payment for membership is not a good idea. The problems ofICANN are caused by too little democracy, not too much, and fees arelikely to reduce participation, though you should be working toincrease participation.
 ICANN is in desparate need of open governance and publicparticipation.	Please create the At-Large membership programaccordingly.
 Without knowing more about what would be expected from At-Largemembers, it is difficult to comment.
 This body needs to represent the end users of the world and pushfor open standards. Proprietary standards for which fees are chargedhave no place on the net. If a "standard" is covered by a patent, andfees are charged, it should be dropped.
 I believe the input of a broader constituency of Internet users tobe essential for the preservation of the Internet and its ideals.
 "democracy without fair rules and indipendence is not a trulydemocracy". Question: Which is the legal nature of ICANN today? The answer to this question is, according to my personal point of view,the first step towards the establishment of a democratic organisation.
 Six seats are unacceptable. Nine is the only way to ensure that myinterests are adequately represented and protected from the landedgentry.All Internet users should be eligible. Participation must not belimited to domain name holders.
 Don't lose your user-justiried foundation. If you do, there may benational (and other) interests totally tearing todays' DNS apart.
 Time may have passed you by. What the deuce are you doing?
 At Large is not an SO!!! At Large is not an SO!!! At Large is notan SO!!!My comments are summed in the quote below. i couldn't agree more withher."The At Large Study Committee (ALSC) are the ones whohave invented the term "At Large Supporting Organization".They are also the ones who have advocated *reducing*the number of at-large seats on the ICANN Board fromnine (half the Board) to six (one third of the Board).If the At-large has only six seats, not only can they beoutvoted by the rest of the Board, but they will be unableto prevent by-law changes from being made over theirobjections, since by-law changes require a 2/3 vote ofthe Board.Not being satisfied with reducing the At-Large to a weakminority of the Board, the ALSC is now proposing tomake the At Large into a Supporting Organization.This is like saying that the general public is just anotherspecial interest group and therefore no more deservingof seats on the Board or input into policy making than anyother special interest group."
 The issue of a membership fee is problematic.  Although a fee of$5or $10 would pose no difficulty to me, it could be quite a hardshipfor those in less wealthy circumstances.  Although the concept of"one share, one vote" is recognized in the business/investment arena,the concept of a "poll tax" has been banned from United Statesgovernmental elections because of its discriminatory nature.  I wouldrecommend searching long and hard for a suitable way to decouple the"tax" that pays for ICANN governance from the individual voices(i.e., votes) that constitute participation.  For example, the DNSrepresents a sort of "virtual real estate".  When granting the rightsand privileges of a new TLD to a new registrar, they essentiallyreceive clear title to a piece of property with unusualcharacteristics: (1) it is "real" in that they can charge a fee forregistrations, (2) it is "virtual" in the sense that there is anearly inexhaustible supply of constructible names in the domain,(3) it costs the registrar very little to service each name, (4) allcosts needed to devise a new name are actually borne by the fee-payingcustomer -- not the registrar organization.  These attributes make theTLD "business" potentially very lucrative.  What other industry letsyou charge money for an inexhaustible supply of somebody else'sclever ideas / real estate?  There is clearly a reasonable "tax base"available here.  Unfortunately, this is also clearly a recipe for bigconflicts of interest -- e.g. having the foxes determine which chickenkoops get their chicken feed based upon how many hens they serve up tothe foxes.  Even so, it is much more difficult to adjust "membershipfees" in an equitable way based on geography or demographics.  Thevoice should be available to all, with the costs borne by those whoseproperty ownership demonstrates an ability to bear those costs.
 At-Large members would be the most important aspect if ICANN -*independent* representatives without allegience to other interests.Should a fee become neccary, the *regular* ICANN members should berequired to subsidize the cost of At-Large members.
 I would be happy to contribute by way of a reasonable fee.However, I should not like to see any fee raise a barrier toparticipation by interested individuals.
 i will try to share the information with all the members.
 Corporate fees and/or sponsorship should subsidize individualusers.
 Re: question 3 - I believe this should be a sliding scale, orthere    should be some mechanism for users w/ resources to subsidize    users w/out. Payment of a fee should not be a barrier to     participation (public radio fundraiser model please - some pay    but anyone can listen)
 As the policies affecting our world-wide networks need comfortableintegration, at-large participation is crucial.  Let us participate!
 Don't lose your user-justiried foundation. If you do, there may benational (and other) interests totally tearing todays' DNS apart.
 At-Large membership should be available free for all internetusers.	Adding a fee requirement for this will sevferely limit who canparticipate.
 As with so many other legal practiioners, my time is something Iwork very hard to protect.  Therefore, I would expect that allcommunications relating to the At-Large membership would be writtenclearly, succinctly, and cover only those issues that are trulyrelevant.  This "low maintenance" membership is the best way to get thebroadest possible particpation.
 There should not be a fee to be involved in this
 I will prefer the ICANN to involve more countries and let morecountries be active on the at-large membership. Next i will prefer moreuser support in discussing issues about the ICANN rather then itsAt-large membership issues as the main focus is on ICANN itself ratherthen the at-large membership. (Apologise for my naive brains)
 First, a $25 fee is a greater burden to say a British Academic orstudent than to a US Academic or student. In other countries, $5 would be prohibitive to most individuals. Whatever fee system is adopted by ICANN, it should reflect this disparity.Second, but not least important: fees collected from the Community, should be spent 100% toward the community, e.g. services, educationand research, and under a strict independant accounting. 
 I lost my passwrod a while ago and contacte you several times toget a replacement - please make this process easier.JS
 I am simply an individual with an interest in ICANN and what itdoes and means. As I am not involved in the Internet in any businessway or in doing research, you may not want any input that I can providewhich would be based on opinion formed from what I read and from what Iexperience through my use of the Internet.
 I think that it is extremely important that ICANN maintain contactand communicatewith the "average" Internet user, and from those communication solicitcommentsand opinions in rgeard to the ongoing operation of the ICANN program.
 The at-large system is the only public input into the entiresystem represented by ICANN.  Involvement in ICANN should beindependent of resource availability or you are going to end up withmassive under-representation of those on lower incomes or residing inthird world countries leading to control of the medium by those withthe financial resources. 
 The Final Report on ICANN At-Large Membership states: "Providing all interested individuals with the opportunity toparticipate in ICANN and for At-Large members to select one-third ofthe Board..."I agree with many other current At-Large members who participated inthe ALSC forum that At-Large members should select NO LESS than half ofthe board...otherwise, we will be relegated to perpetual irrelevance. Needless to say, it will be very difficult for ICANN to findhigh-quality net.users who will devote their time and hair follicles tosolving ICANN's many problems if all of their recommendations areignored by the entrenched bureaucracy (ISPs, nation states, etc.).
   The problem requiring a fee for membership is that it isoligarchic, & even a low registration fee can be aa barrier for ThirdWorld citizens to take part. 
 I thought I was an at large member.  
 I am ready and quite willing to participate in any capacity thatthe ICANN deems necessary.
 I'm already an At-large member.
 You currently have my address as xxx@xxx.org; I will beabandoning that address sometime this year, so please update yourrecords. I you send a confirmation request to my old address I will seeit.My primary interest is in issues related to unsolicited bulk email andrelated forms of network abuse. Specifically, I am interested inconvincing ICANN to take a strong stance against network abuse,including UBE.
 There MUST be a way for 'ordinary' individuals to have some inputto ICANN decision-making processes. However, if it becomes tooexpensive or time consuming there is a danger of capture by specialinterest groups. Not an easy problem to solve (but neither is it uniqueto ICANN). 
 Is At-Large membership a marketing tool for ICANN or a valuablechannel of information? Perhaps ICANN should consider paying itsAt-Large members rather than the other way around.
 I find that the At-Large membership program is helpful for ICANNin guaging what the public need and wants from the ICANN. Operatingwithout this needed public participation people might easily create adifferent body to preform the same functions. In short keep the publicinvolved or they will create a body that will keep them involved.
 Who has recommended a fee? ICANN should get money from theregistrars.Before a fee is raised the cashflow of ICANN has to be documented bythirdparty.
 ICANN must provide a value to the industry at large if it is notto lose ground to alternative sources of domain "control".
 If there is a fee then the At-Large membership should probably beopen.
 Charging a Fee for At-Large membership looks like a good way ofkilling it off.  How many people vote in real elections when it is freeand you are voting for the whole executive rather than just a minorityvoice? An increasingly small percentage.
 At-Large Membership is working.  It needs to be expanded (moreAt-Large board representation).
 I would prefer more regular updates about activities and resultsof recent activities.
 Re # 4:  My e-mail address will be changing due to Mediacom changeof ISP, but I do not know what it will become.
 I think it's a shame that ICANN is creatying further barriers toentry for public membership.  As it has shown many times in the past,ICANN is not concerned with the constituency it represents as much asit is looking for yet another way to tilt the balance of membershiptoward the corporate interests.  I am not required to pay a fee to vote in my country's elections.  I amalso not required to pay to voice my concerns at any of the publicforums responsible for policies that affect me.  There is no reason atall that a State-funded committee should be soliciting money frompeople just so they can practice self-determination.While it is entirely within my means to pay the proposed fees, that isnot the case for the vast majority of the world's population.  As abody charged with ensuring accessibility to the Internet for the peopleof the world, you should set a higher standard for yourselves than yourpast record has shown.	The Internet is not an exclusive club just forthose who have money, it should be equally available to everybody.  Bylimiting at-large membership to those who can afford to pay, you arelimiting your understaning and representation to the wealthy minority.If you wish to maintain any relevance in the Internet community, youneed to dramatically change your perspective.  Climb out of your glasstower and begin working for the people who use the Internet every day. Otherwise, your power and influence will continue to dissolve as moreand more people turn their backs on you in disgust.I wish you luck and wisdom as you consider your options.Sincerely,
 site and e-mails in another languages for membershipsthank you 
 I would like to see the At-Large committee or what have you obtaina majority of its funding from the Internet public rather than fromlarge businesses (Verisign, etc), in the hopes that future policieswill keep the little guys in mind. The domain registration system is inugly shape now, but it probably isn't too late to fix it.
 Well, having to pay in order to vote doesn't sound very democraticto me.Perhaps this the way you found to keep US control over the internet ?
 Nine at large members on the Board like the rules say. I am an atlarge member and wish to continue
 I have attended numerous ICANN meetings, review the ICANN web siteregularly, and represent several clients intimately involved in theICANN process.	It is my opinion that ICANN takes almost all actionsbased upon staff recommendation, without regard to community consensus. Perhaps this is because the forum does not exist for the community toexpress consensus.  The staff is very competent and qualified, but doesnot seem to seek opinion from the Internet community.  ICANN is foundedupon open and transparent processes and consensus building, which doesnot exist now.	Accordingly, the at-large membership of ICANN is notonly important, but crucial and necessary to ICANN's success.Please contact me with any questions.  My direct dial telephone numberis xxx-xxx-xxxx.
 ICANN stands on the threshold of irrelevance thanks to itsdecision to radically alter the rules for at-large directors prior tothe very first election. Charging for membership will finish off anyclaim ICANN ever had of legitimacy.
 Make very clear what the at-large members can and cannot do andhow they can work with the board (managing expectations)
 I have been an avid internet user and system administrator sincethe mid eighties and I believe that "at large" members are needed tohelp with policymaking.I was an "at large" member when ICANN first started the program andwould like to continue that role.Please let me know when more info. becomes available.Sincerely, 
 I am currently an At-Large member, and would prefer to remain so. The costs for this should be recovered in fees from those who use theservices of ICANN - including (indirectly) me. The key is that itshould not be necessary for me to pay to volunteer my time for aservice as important as this.  When you add money to a membership, youadd the filter of disposable income to the winnowing of candidates,eliminating (some) students and others whose opinion should beincluded.  You also make it possible for corporations to buy even moreinfluence than they already have by sponsoring memberships foremployees, potentially shifting the input by removing conflicting yetpoorer (or more principled) voices.  The importance of unfilteredpublic input cannot be overstated, and to ask knowledgeable volunteersto pay to help make ICANN's policies appropriate to the public isunconscionable.
 I am delighted to see this initiative, though I would feel moreeasy input opportunities should have been offered sooner.I am very disturbed by the Board manoeuverings along the way,especially the extensions of the unelected.  I support the concept of aGovernment-free ICANN-type body but it needs to be far more accountableand far less legalistic; there seems, in particular, a very badinfluence in the shape of one of the executives.  I have no problem with a small fee; costs have to be paid (and evengrants bring strings) and people value what they pay for.  I actuallysent in a personal donation a couple of years back ($50, I think) butfeel the mandatory fee should be much lower.  The main income, though,should be from an element of the profitable registry fees.I have some difficulties too with the reduction in At-Large Directorsproposed, especially as the original numbers were never implemented.  Iagree the technical communities have key interests, though someelements, such as the Registry and IP communities, have been terribleparticipants.  Additionally, the Non-Commercial element has been verybadly treated and sidelined instead of being given a key role; this andthe domain-holder issue need addressing.At the end of the day, the keys to ICANN are not the politics anywaybut the stable and farsighted planning and this will come down tovolunteers and experts; most users really neither know nor care.  Thelead challenge is to keep commercial interests from gaining too muchpower.	And keep the lawyers down!!  Good luck!
 Costs of representation and participation must be accessible andjustifiable to support membership fees.
 Regarding fee, you can get donations from major IT companies,IBM,Yahoo,MS and so on... 
 I am sure there are many reasons why a fee-based membership seemslogical.  However, my opinion is that decisions that affect ICANNshould not be decided solely based on the opinions of people who willpay to join.  The Internet is made up of billions of people, rich andpoor.  Why are you going to continue to move in a direction wheredecisions from the "At Large" community are made only by those willingor able to pay.  By forcing people to pay to belong, you alienatepeople - me for one.  The credibility of ICANN is at stake - don't makepeople pay to voice an opinion.
 Please keep At-Large alive!  As an interested Internet user/admin,I feel like it is my only chance to ever have a say in the process. Don't silence us!
 I hope Mr. Auerbach is getting through to Ms. Dyson.
 Although $5 may seem like a nominal charge for some, not all of uscan forward even that.	I think that such a membership should be opento everyone, regardless of economic income or motivation, but thatICANN should report who makes up that body through some form ofdemographic data collection.  
 I think that the At-Large membership needs to be ghiven a largerrole in the ICANN organisation than what we have currently if amembership fee is to be expected.
 Nope.
 It is not clear what the real purpose is behind the at-largemembership. 
 Thanks for your effort to make the Internet more humane.
 A fee will only serve to assure domination of ICANN by corporateinterests!  It doesn't pass the smell test to require people to PAY tovote!  This is a poll tax, the public version of which was eliminatedin the US quite some time ago.
 The answer to #3 really depends on what a membership gets me.  I'man at-large member now, and I've gotten to vote once, got onenewsletterfrom ICANN, and otherwise have had my opinions ignored.  I had to hearabout thissurvey from another source.  You people are pathetic.
 As a current At-Large member, I vigorously protest ICANN's plansto charge fees for membership or otherwise disenfranchise the widerinternet community. ICANN has increasingly acted in secret, acted as anelitist body rather than one with legitimacy from the people whoseinterests it should represent. Basically if you take further steps tonarrow ICANN's representation, I will do all I can to remove ICANN'smandate - including public protest, online action, advocacy, andcontacts with my representatives in the US Congress.
 A broad and representative membership should be actively sought inlobbying for Africanist participants.
 I think there is a typo in one of your survey questions.  Where issays:  "Because At-Large representation and participation will involvecosts, it   has been recommended that there be a fee for At-Large membership."I think you meant to say:  "Because At-Large representation and participation might threaten the   status quo, it has been recommended that there be a poll tax to   discourage At-Large membership."
 The At-Large membership program is vital in improving the tatteredimage of ICANN among the people that are affected by it's decisions. At some not-too-distant point in the future, ICANN's survival as anentity will depend on the existence of a At-Large program withsignificant input into ICANN's decision making process.
 The internet society must have the right to elect their owngovernment aka ICANN directors and in analogy to real life, polls andelections must be paid by the society in whole and not only by thevoters!
  Two way communication between ICANN and user group isprerequisite in making policy development and decision making.Therefore At Large membership will be useful mechanism to support ICANNactivity.
 Even though I personally would be able and willing to pay a small membership fee, I remain very skeptical about the implementationof such a fee. I would ask the ALSC to look at ISOC's decision to stop taking global membership fees.(http://www.isoc.org/isoc/membership/newmembers.shtmlhttp://www.isoc.org/isoc/membership/individual.shtml)As xxx xxxxx from the ISOC Board of Trustees explained on theICANN Studienkreis meeting, this has also to do with the highcosts of processing small fees. The Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency has similar problems collecting their small membership fees.
 The At-Large membership should be open to any and all interestedstakeholders regardless or their status as stakeholders.  The Pollstaken upon the atlargestudy.org forum clearly indicated thatthis was desired.    There should be at least 51% (9 Board Seats) of the Board memberselected bythe At-Large members.  This too was clearly outlined in the pollstaken by the participants of the atlargestudy.org forum as well as a number of other Internet organizations not participatingon the atlargestudy.org prior to the "Final Report".That any and all policy decisions or considerations should bevoted upon by the At-Large members prior to a BoD votefor transparency reasons as well as compliance to the spritof the MoU and White paper contracts with ICANN.
 I would only pay the membership fee knowing that all Committeeminutes and meetings would be open to all participants. It is importantthat ICANN ends up supporting a system that makes all "Names andNumbers" essentially worthless, just like telephone numbers. Thereshould not be the current system where there is only one option for aparticular english or foreign word.
 It would best for there to be no membership fee
 The At-Large Study Committee issued a report in fall 2001recommending a structure for at-large participation in Internetgovernance.  That report proposed a new organization - an "At LargeService Organization" - whose membership would be restricted to domainname holders.  However, because of the dominance of commercialinterests among current domain name holders, in my opinion the proposalis not sufficiently inclusive.	It fails to provide for representationof the broader community of Internet users who do not necessarilyrequire domain names.I prefer the mode of at-large participation provided for by the NGO andAcademic ICANN Study ("NAIS Report," August 2001).  The onlyrequirement for participation in elections would be a physical streetaddress and an e-mail address.	Fees or dues would be scaled by mediannational income.
 make icann really global
 Paid membership makes sense only for value added membershipservices. ICAAN costs  are not services. 
 I am amazed about the lengths the ICANN board goes through tomaintain their level of unaccountability...
 If it costs you as much as $5/person to get input by e-mail andweb surveys, you are doing something seriously wrong.
 I spent hours attempting to register for the initial election.  Iwas unable to do so, I believe, because of insufficient servercapacity.  Hence I have been disenfranchised.
 I don't really see why a membership fee should be required , as thismebership is suposed to represent us the internet users worldwide. Inany event i would likely continue being an At-Large memeber even with afee even though our input is not really required or wanted it seems.Since i becmae an At-Large member i have voted once on the election butnothing else of substance was ever asked of us or presented to us. 
 I did not answer question #3 as I do not recall what themembership fee for a full member is.  Any at-large membership feeshould, of course, be based on the fee charged to be a full member.  Iwould be best if the operating costs of ICANN were completely coveredby domain fees rather than by imposing any financial burden onmembership.Since the response to the last call for at-large members was notoverwhelming (at least in North America) adding a fee will most likelylessen the response even further next time.  Also this brings up thequestion of charging different rates for different countries:  i.e. Iam more than capable of paying $25US while many in Africa or Asia wouldfind that amount an insurmountable barrier unless one is part of theruling class.In summary, I think charging fees for membership is a very bad idea.
 While I currently live in the USA I am a British Citizen.	I feelthat no fee should be required but that the minor costs involved (mostof the information transfer/votingcan be done online at negligiblecost) should come from the registrars.	They will of course tack itonto the domain name costs, but at least that way everyone with adomain would automatically be a member.
 I think At-Large membership is a crucial part of the democraticbasis of the Internet.
 It was my understanding that I was already *registered* as anAt-Large member of ICANN.  I voted in the last election. Furthermore, as a domain owner, I have already "paid my dues", so tospeak.	I am not able to pay many more fees, since I am already payingfor the domain, my Internet access, and all the costs associated withmaintaining them.  I have little money to spare.  If you ware seekingwealthy folks and big businesses to people you At-Large membership, youwill be losing a lot of well-educated, motivated folks who can't affordto pay one more fee. 
 Although a nominal fee is a good measure of intent to participate,it should not be the only potential metric. Sponsorship by trustedthird parties (such as the IETF, ACM, IEEE, for example) could be anappropriate substitute.
 comment to question 1: ... provided the ludicrous system used forthe election of European Icann Board Members is improved upon!
 Your question number 3 about whether I would be willing to pay toparticipate in the decision-making process offends me. The obviousanalogy in the USA is the poll tax, which is unconstitutional. Iunderstand it may help to defray administrative costs, but asking thisquestion is a public relations blunder.
 I think that At-Large membership is dangerous. Think about thespam companies, that employ hundreds/thousands of people to sendunsolicited email, having those people vote as a block.
 I was thinking that at-large membership should receive some tpyeof compensation and now there is that question of charging us?	am i onthe wrong track here?
 Why not include a domain name with at large membership, and letall domain name registrants vote? Whois can serve as election registry.
 There should be a process to feedback to members the extent towhich at-large-member views have/have not been taken into account. Thisshould not be a window-dressing exercise.
 I thought I already was an 'at-large' member.  Or perhaps that wasa dream.  Asking people to pay to volunteer their time, expertise, andinsight is an insult to all concerned and will only serve to damage theInternet community, ICANN, or probably both.  Choose wisely.
 ICANN should definitely impose fees for membership to ensure itscontinuance, and to certify bonafide Netizens.
 i did not give my name here but the e-mail address works and ianswered sincerily
 The $5 fee is not low enough to encourage membership fromthird-world countries. If you must implement a fee, it should be nomore than $1 in my opinion.I also think that the terrible mis-management of the registration andvoting process was a disgrace, and that using your own incompetence tojustify dismantling the At-large process is a shameful and self servingact.At-large membership should be free to all comers, and funded by thecorporate members and stakeholders who are getting doublerepresentation, not by the At-large membership itself.The board's and staff's continuing attepts to marginalize and eliminatethe only constituency that represents the general internet-using publichas been blatant and self-serving. ICANN now has very little legitimacywith Netizens in general, mostly due to the disdain which certain boardmembers and officers have demonstrated for us, our concerns, and ourelected representatives.The tone of this survey (which shouldn't even pose the possibility thatAt-large membership may not 'move forward'), also isn't helping youany.
 I am perplexed at this whole thing.  I am already an at largemember.  This sounds like some new thing.  Are you prepared to simplyjetison the existing at large members?	Do regular members pay for thepriviledge of being regular members?  This sounds like a new scam tome.
 Hopefully any redesign will actualy mean that At-Large members getsome significant say in things as opposed to being a revenue pool, ashappens all too often with such structures.
 1. No membership fee2. Never limit at large members to domain name holders3. At least half of board directors to be elected from at largeelection
 I think a fee will massivley reduce people joining. However, Itend to feel that a very small fee could be usedto reduce admin fees to run the @large. Also, not like the utter jokeof the first, and only, @large election todate for 5 of the 9 board seats. Joke as in the way ICANN did it and not the rightand usefulness of the @large seats.ICANN MUST keep atlarge seats at 50% of the board of ICANN as per thefounding documents include as well as to honour Jon Postel.
 Thank you, too.
 Does ICANN know that there is a AP atlarge  org in AP region? Isthat org recogonize by ICANN?
 I don't think it's good when there are just six "user-directors"in the board of directors.In my opinion there should be as much "user-directors" as otherdirectors.
 I think the At-Large directors should get the half of the seats inICANN's Board.
 I have concerns about the design of your survey.  The questionsare leading.  Also, you do not ask any motivational questions as to whysomeone would like to participate.
 It should be created in a way which disseminates laregecompanies/group of interest to get seats on the board just to providetheir own interests. 
 Was an employee of US government when the message switchingcenters were introduced into our computer R O O M.  Created andtransmitted data nationwide via teletype and tape media.  Programmed onIBM360, dumb terminals and IBM mainframe.  Have homebased PC/Webbusiness.  Tired of SPAM and porn emails.   Have more than passinginterest in ICANN.
 keep internet free!!!
 Other languages (e.g. german) would be nice.
 Informations and probably decision maker
 You are WELCOME !
 May ICANN be with Porto Allegre
 Please provide a secure website for membership registration thatallows me to use my credit card to pay the fee.
 I am already an At-Large member, but you may have my old emailaddress on my existing account, xxx@xxx.com.  I strongly disagreethat there should be a fee charged for At-Large representation, as thiswould amount to an illegal and unconstitutional poll tax.
 By definition, an at-large membership should not have a "fee" orany other barrier to entry. 
 You are getting to commercial oriented.ICANN was the last Internet community, free and respectable.
 $5 U.S. may seem little, but for members in other parts of theworld it is a lot. Perhaps the fee should be proportionate to what anaverage computer would cost in each country, if there is a fee.I would prefer no fee, but a small levy on each name registered underICANN to pay for the administration of the voting body that elects thepolicy makers for ICANN. I