Re: [ALSC-Forum] Membership

[Eric Dierker]

Mr. Roberts,

I was actually beginning to admire your posts and now you went and ruined it.
Bullpucky sir.  You seem to be suggesting that you and your and your cadre
unilaterally changed your commitments.  {Which I believe you did in your eyes}
You epitomize wrongs and lack of honor.  You were honor bound to fulfill the
agreements your company made.  But you weaseled.

Let us talk morality instead of statutory connivance.  You have not and do not
intend to help me and my dot commoners!!!  You seethe with disgust toward us dot
commoners and consider us your enemies.  Do not insult my sisters and brothers by
pretending to be one of us.  You have failed us and we do not want you to pretend
to help us anymore.

Your references below are reminiscent of Lenin versus Trotsky, as a matter of fact
some is word for word.  You are not dealing with an unsophisticated proletariat
here but a wiser than you group of very unhappy folks.

Go away,
Eric

Mike Robbers 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.
>
> 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.