Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

This is contrary to my understanding of the facts.  I may be wrong, but
I understood that membership in the GA was the primary means of
establishing membership in the voting pool for at-large Board members.

If this is not correct, could someone please point me to the relevant
document(s)?  I would be the first to admit that it is no longer possible
to keep up with the ways in which ICANN continually squirms on the subject
of what constitutes the general membership, so I am prepared to be
corrected on this.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
[...]

> It is you who has the apples and pianos.  There are *no* significant
> rights inherent in GA "membership", just as there are *no* significant
> rights inherent in IETF "membership".  In fact, "membership" is not well
> defined for either organization.  This is an important and fundamental
> concept, and until you understand it you will be shadow boxing with
> ghosts.
> 

Incidentally, this is also, as I understand it, not a true statement about
the IETF, since "membership" (established by attending 2 meetings in the
right time frame) entitles one to be be eligible to volunteer for a
nominating committee, selected at random from among the volunteers, which
will choose six IAB members. RFC 1601. The IETF thus has very important
input into the membership of the IAB, making the IAB responsible to the
IETF membership.  This is an important and fundamental concept, and until
you understand it....
 

-- 

A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--