How absolutely astounding that anyone who supposedly advocates for greater public accessibility wants to retroactively change the RALO model to "pay for play". We operate on a shoestring. There's no way we could participate in San Juan without financial support. The value of CLUE personnel time spent so far on this ICANN advisory adventure -- with no evidence yet that we'll actually have any effect on the process -- is substantial. A "membership fee" assumes that we are joining something from which we would be entitled to "member benefits". So far the only benefit has been the ability to have substantial amounts of our time disintegrated in the pursuit of pointless discussions that have nothing to so with actual policy. In any case, it has yet to be demonstrated that ICANN's financial model requires such contributions. The RALO structure is that of an advisory body, not a membership organization, and we are here by invitation. The notion that we should have to pay for the privilege of offering our point of view is reprehensible. Hey, I have no problem recommending that CLUE pay a membership fee IFF ICANN will pay for the time I spend having to read ridiculous, time-wasting emails generated from its process. The net-positive revenue stream to our organization would be considerable. - Evan