Re: [ALSC-Forum] Membership

[Mike Roberts]

Danny, you've got to be pulling our leg on this one.  The statutory 
membership issue has been hashed and rehashed innumerable times since 
it got a thorough going over by the first membership committee in the 
winter and spring of 1999.

The matter was further discussed at length by the board and the 
public at the Santiago meeting in August of 1999, with particular 
reference to the impending seating of the Supporting Organization 
Directors which took place in November of that year, and to the 
Board's decision to implement an At Large Council with indirect 
selection of the related Board seats.   The pertinent amendments to 
the Bylaws were posted on October 10, 1999 for public comment and 
were adopted by the Board on October 29, 1999.

It's very clear that granting corporate statutory membership to 
individuals would fundamentally discriminate against other 
stakeholder interests in ICANN, and more particularly against non-US 
interests, who already feel disadvantaged by the fact that ICANN has 
to be incorporated in a state of the United States at all.

Since amending the Bylaws to provide for a strong and constructive 
ALSO as envisioned by the ALSC report will require a consensus of the 
major stakeholder interests, you are just butting your head against a 
stone wall on this one.  One of the important questions to be asked 
about proposals for the next At Large formulation is, "How do we 
convince thirteen ICANN Directors to vote for it?"

- Mike


At 19:56 -0400 8/31/01, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>The original Bylaws of the Corporation (Nov. 6, 1998) anticipated that ICANN
>would have a membership... hence, ARTICLE II: MEMBERSHIP:  (This Article is
>reserved for use when the Corporation has members.)
>
>Somewhere along the line this was changed to what we now have today:  "The
>Corporation shall not have members as defined in the California Nonprofit
>Public Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL"), notwithstanding the use of the
>term "Member" in these bylaws, in a selection plan adopted by Board
>resolution, or in any other action of the Board."
>
>The At-Large (as described by the ALSC) will not be members of ICANN.  They
>will be individuals and/or institutions within a Supporting Organization that
>is technically an internal working committee within a corporation with no
>members.
>
>Is this what the Internet community either wants or expects?  I don't think
>so.  True membership fosters true accountability.  Perhaps the ALSC can
>clarify why , in their view, ICANN should continue to be a corporation
>without members, instead of a corporation with At-Large members.