[ga] ICANN Reform: Membership provisions

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

When one reviews the historical record and examines the competing proposals 
put forth by ICANN, the Boston Working Group, and the Open Root Server 
Confederation, one cannot help but notice the universal consensus on the 
critical need for "membership".  Even ICANN reserved Article II in its intial 
bylaws "for use when the Corporation has members". 

Membership promotes accountability.  Current ICANN management has denied us 
membership, and has denied us those rights that are accorded by way of 
membership.  Our initial MoU with the Department of Commerce called for the 
establishment of "membership mechanisms".  ICANN has not only denied us such 
membership, it has acted to thwart every effort to seat an Individual's 
constituency, and has acted to eliminate the representation provided by 
At-Large directors.  

Is this the type of ICANN that you want?  Are you happy having your rights 
taken away from you, and watching as an elected representative At-Large gets 
killed right in front of your eyes?  Does an organization like this deserve 
to have its contracts renewed by the DoC?  A motion to recompete the ICANN 
contracts makes our dissatisfaction with the current regime a strong factor 
to be weighed by the DoC in its evaluation of the reform initiatives that 
ICANN will produce.

We have a right to membership provisions and a right to democratic 
representative processes.  Let the GA make its displeasure known.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html