ALSC Request for input

| I expect many of you to have opinions on theese topics.

As you may know, I was invited to an panel debate at the ICANN meeting in
Stockholm to discuss this topic.

The view I presented there, which I belive is shared by some of you was:

* While it is clear that ICANN may need an open membership, simply because
in any organisation (or company for that matter) I belive that a staff
should be accuntable to a board who is again accountable to the general
assambly/membership(or Stock holders for a comercial company :-).

* Today we have 3 supporting organisations with clear purposes:
- ASO dealing with addressing policies
- PSO dealing with developing protocols and standardisation
- DNSO dealing with

* It is unclear to me what the role of an at large membership should be.
Traditionaly the wayt of influencing the future of the Internet has been
trough participation. In the IETF process, or in the more recent RIPE,
APNIC, ARIN and evetually ICANN processes.

* To me it seems important to focus on the 3 above areas of ICANN and make
shure that the at Large Memembership fits that purpose. One way of doing
this, would be to offer all participants in the process the oportunity to
become members of ICANN within their area of interest (addressing, protocols
or naming) and thus make the ICANN at large membership and the non existent
RIPE memvership the same thing.

I look forward to hear other opinions on this,

Hans Petter