George Conrades writes:
> So my suggestion(s) is/are: No classes. Individuals and
> organizations can be members and get one vote each. Anyone
> coming up with the initiation fee and the necessary
> identification can be a member.
Michael Sondow:
+ Sounds good.
Nonsense Michael. Putting organ
I wrote:
> I'll just form a thousand dummy companies
> each with their own membership all paid up.
> Presto, I own the Internet or a reasonable
> facsimile thereof. Doesn't work. Will never
> work. Is undemocratic and basically evil.
Daniel Kaplan replies:
+ We won't make any progress if you bel
Daniel Kaplan rejoinders:
> even in the most restrictive scenario (for instance, if membership
> was limited to IP address / DN holders), you would qualify!
I would never join an organization none of my
friends and neighbours could participate in.
I am not one of the elite nor do I consider
Daniel Kaplan writes:
+ So my suggestion(s) is/are: No classes. Individuals and organizations
+ can be members and get one vote each. Anyone coming up with the
+ initiation fee and the necessary identification can be a member.
I'll just form a thousand dummy companies
each with their own membe
Steve and all,
We (INEGroup) agree with steve's contention here entirely. George's
suggestion of limiting membership in any fashion is ethically challenged
to say the least, not to mention in strict contrast to the requirements
of the White Paper.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> George:
>
> YOUR
George and all,
Again George, how does restricting membership to what you suggest as
an example, Domain Name Holders, meet the requirements of the
White Paper of "All Interested Parties"?
George Conrades wrote:
> No, to domain name holders as an example.
>
> -Original Message-
> From:
George and all,
Scale in what way? Could you please define you meaning of "Scale"?
In addition, I would add that if you intend to advocate that only a limited
number of stakeholders can become members, how do you justify this
against the requirements of the White Paper?
George Conrades wrote:
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> My own suggestion: no classes. Only people as members. Anyone coming
> up with the initiation fee and the necessary identification can be a
> member.
Nii replies:
+ I find this option very appealing.
Minus the fee and I'd agree completely. Recall
people in stations ot
George asks:
> What's your suggestion for the membership model and how will it work?
Membership open to anyone who can access e-mail,
can verify their identity and participates in a
roughly civil manner. Members determine *all*
places on the body charged with regulating the
technical funct
Bob, we have several issues re membership, including identification, fees,
voting procedures/proxy,nomination/election of at-large directors, and their
relationship to the SO membership,if any,but including geographical
representation. All I'm saying is maybe we should consider approaches at
first
George writes:
> Until the PROCESS is better understood so we can open it up with a
> sense that it will scale.
PROCESS, my dear, SCHMOSSES. *We* are the process. I am
*part* of the process, intergral to it's evolution. The
same is true of everyone and anyone who, within civil
limits, choos
Do these comments indicate a preference for limiting
membership to certain categories of people/organizations?
George Conrades wrote:
>
> rus, I am inclined to think we should move slowly on opening up membership
> in an unlimited way UNTIL we understand how the membership process works
> agains
Mr. Conrades writes:
? ... I am inclined to think we should move slowly on opening up
? membership in an unlimited way UNTIL we understand how the membership
? process works against a more understood or qualified database of
? constituents.
You are telling me I should be limited until
I someho
13 matches
Mail list logo
