Anyone here feel best qualified to be point man with the FSC?

[MeatPounder]

So the rep has to be a west coast webmaster?
They cuts out 90% of the link list view you are looking for

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by MeatPounder

So the rep has to be a west coast webmaster?
They cuts out 90% of the link list view you are looking for

No but it is a good idea... Obviously if you want to lobby at the federal level you need to have lobbyists in Washington. Similarly, if you want the best FSC representation then you want to have not just a voice but a face too at the FSC meetings - which are generally in California.

The only people that really should concern themselves with what the FSC can do for them are FSC members.

The FSC, first and foremost, is a trade organization that works on behalf of its membership. They are not the ACLU and it is a lucky coincidence that much of their work goes on to benefit all the others that are not members.

When you all are asking this representation let me ask in return - are you all members? I seriously don't think it is fair to demand something of an organization that you are not making a commitment to in return.

[Surfn]

Originally Posted by Far-L

No but it is a good idea... Obviously if you want to lobby at the federal level you need to have lobbyists in Washington. Similarly, if you want the best FSC representation then you want to have not just a voice but a face too at the FSC meetings - which are generally in California.

The only people that really should concern themselves with what the FSC can do for them are FSC members.

The FSC, first and foremost, is a trade organization that works on behalf of its membership. They are not the ACLU and it is a lucky coincidence that much of their work goes on to benefit all the others that are not members.

When you all are asking this representation let me ask in return - are you all members? I seriously don't think it is fair to demand something of an organization that you are not making a commitment to in return.

It's thinking like this that reaffirms my position that independent webmasters hold the keys to their own destiny. Collective representation is more monotheistic than most people realize. I will never support the FSC.

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by Surfn

It's thinking like this that reaffirms my position that independent webmasters hold the keys to their own destiny. Collective representation is more monotheistic than most people realize. I will never support the FSC.

No problem. If you think indie webmasters can do what a professional organization can that is made up of many with similar interests then have at it. To the best of my recollection, no indie company stepped up to dealing with the feds alone in the 2257 proceedings.

A trade organization like FSC is not "monotheistic". It is democratic and all paying members have voting privileges.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Far-L

When you all are asking this representation let me ask in return - are you all members? I seriously don't think it is fair to demand something of an organization that you are not making a commitment to in return.

I have been assuming that everyone seriously involved in this discussion so far are members.

One of the big questions, or perhaps positions is a better word, has been "Should we renew our memberships when they come up this summer, and can we use the power of those renewals (or choosing not to renew) to get the FSC to communicate with us more and take some of the actions we want to see.".

If there isn't more communication between the FSC and onliners I think a large number of webmasters who joined over 2257 will let their memberships lapse.

And if the FSC doesn't add an online CC processor for memberships and donations, I think a lot of webmasters will also let their memberships lapse.

[Far-L]

Originally Posted by Bill

I have been assuming that everyone seriously involved in this discussion so far are members.

One of the big questions, or perhaps positions is a better word, has been "Should we renew our memberships when they come up this summer, and can we use the power of those renewals (or choosing not to renew) to get the FSC to communicate with us more and take some of the actions we want to see.".

If there isn't more communication between the FSC and onliners I think a large number of webmasters who joined over 2257 will let their memberships lapse.

And if the FSC doesn't add an online CC processor for memberships and donations, I think a lot of webmasters will also let their memberships lapse.

Great points, thanks.

I think the success so far of the 2257 rebuttal is reason to stay with the organization - and like I have said in other threads, the are many other successes the FSC has achieved on behalf of its members that make it worthwhile.

The online join is a great idea and I will bring that to Tom Hymes personally, find out the status, and come back to this thread with an update.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Far-L

I think the success so far of the 2257 rebuttal is reason to stay with the organization...

I agree. The FSC stepped up to the plate on 2257 and aceived a success which benefits every webmaster in the business, including non-US webmasters and non-FSC members.

It wasn't a perfect and ideal process, and you'll hear complaints about it, but the bottom line is still - the FSC fought the feds on 2257 and got the result webmasters wanted, which was protection for secondary producers.

This is the big reason that I think we should ally with the FSC, and try to make it "THE webmasters trade organization".

Do you know who is behind the Adult Freedom Foundation and Paul Cambria, Far-L?