Re: [ALSC-Forum] Membership

[Jeff Williams]

Leah and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  Leah, methinks you are correct.

  I KNOW that our members believe you are correct.  That's
around +100k stakeholders.

  I often find Mr. Roberts (no pun intended) to be continually
attempting to justify that special interest groups should have
a majority on the BoD.  Yet I have yet to read, or hear
of an argument of his that is amply supported or sufficiently
convincing.  Perhaps Mr. Roberts is under the impression
that due to his past position with ICANN (Ex-CEO)
lends his arguments a sort of superior quality about them?
Well unfortunately they do not, Mr. Roberts.  Sorry, Mike,
no cigar!  Monica brand isn't it?  >;)


L Gallegos wrote:

> In 1999 and prior, the public was almost completely unaware of the
> goings on behind ICANN and the debate regarding membership.
> That was the "ace in the hole" for the boardsquatters at the time.
> There was little attention paid to it by the vast majority of
> stakeholders who are now completely discriminated against.
>
> I don't understand how you can say that the other, special
> interests would be discriminated against when there would be an
> eqaual number of directors representing those interests balance by
> the at-large directors.  The at-large members, regardless of their
> numbers would still elect only half the board.  The descrimination
> goes the other way, methinks.
>
> On 31 Aug 2001, at 23:44, 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.
>
> Hmmm, and who were those committee members?
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Again, who cast the votes to amend the by-laws?  Which ones
> were representing the at-large community?
>
> Of course it has been hashed and rehashed.  The problem is that
> there is an imbalance that does not allow for representative votes.
> Lately, the board doesn't even pay much lip service to the issue
> and appoints a committee that still does not represent the at-large.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> How so, if the at-large is diverse and elect directors according to
> diverse interests?  I fully understand the frustration of the non US
> stakeholders.  I'm IN the US and feel disenfranchised.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> I love that one - major stakeholder interests.  That tells the whole
> story.  Since the major stakeholder interests are the users, I guess
> it should be the other way around, shouldn't it?  I think if it were re-
> stated to say special interests, it would be more accurate.  And
> yes, he's probably butting his head against a wall since those
> special interests will anything and everything to ensure that the
> major stakeholders will get nothing but lip service, if that.
>
> 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?"
>
> Start over with a fully elected board and a restructuring of ICANN to
> fit the intent of the White Paper.
>
> >
> > - Mike
>
> Leah
>
> >
> >
> > 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