Re: [ALSC-Forum] Membership

[Jeff Williams]

Mike and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Mike Roberts wrote:

> 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.

  Very true.

>
>
> 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.

  Yes, and the preponderance of the comments submitted did NOT
support the amendment, Mike.  Here is where the stakeholders and
the ICANN BoD part company.

  It is also important that the stakeholders should vote on ANY amendments
before enactment or otherwise implementation.  In that this was not done
it is obvious that this amendment is one implemented via fiat.

>
>
> 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.

  Agreed.

>
>
> 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?"

  The easy answer is, let the stakeholders vote on it first.  If after
that vote, the BoD decides otherwise, than they have done so
not in support of the participating stakeholders...

>
>
> - 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.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208