May I just say from ICANN's perspective I don't believe we could accept such a fee even if offered; I doubt that the provisions of the bylaws related to ALSes would permit it - and even if they did, this would go against the principle that joining At-Large should always be free of charge. On 13 Jun 2007, at 23:35, Michael Maranda wrote:
We (AFCN) do not favor any fee or contribution, at this time.
On 6/13/07, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro > wrote: Keep in mind that end users already fund over 80% of ICANN's budget through assessments imposed by ICANN and collected through ICANN-accredited registries and registrars. Personally, the idea that we would pay more seems absurd to me.
-- Bret
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct