<div dir="ltr">FWD has had paid membership options for years. The paid memberships help to improve the network and increase it's reach. As far as I've heard (and as far as the site mentions), paid membership is not a requirement. That would sort of go against the "talk... for free... for good" slogan. <br>
<br>AR<br><br clear="all">-- <br>Alex Robar<br><a href="mailto:alex.robar@gmail.com">alex.robar@gmail.com</a><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:48 PM, SIP <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sip@arcdiv.com">sip@arcdiv.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div> From what I can ascertain, this is a way to essentially fund Jeff<br>
Pulver's political agenda. I remember writing something a couple of<br>
years back (<br>
<a href="http://neil.ideasip.com/2006/03/08/von-coalition-and-the-ideals-of-the-little-guy/" target="_blank">http://neil.ideasip.com/2006/03/08/von-coalition-and-the-ideals-of-the-little-guy/</a><br>
) about how the VON Coalition, which is meant to be a political action<br>
committee to help foster new communications, has a somewhat high barrier<br>
to entry (minimum $10,000 per year).<br>
<br>
As far as I can tell, this FWD membership is a less expensive way for<br>
people to put their money behind a similar agenda (well... okay, Jeff's<br>
agenda, whatever that may be).<br>
<br>
The only real issue I see with it is that, a political action committee<br>
is a committee. The FWD membership seems a little less transparent. It<br>
could very well be a way to fund Jeff Pulver's personal vision. While<br>
he's done some great things in the community, I still feel awkward with<br>
the idea of funding the whole "One man. One voice. One decision. No<br>
oversight" idea.<br>
<br>
I'm eager to see how it pans out, though.<br>
<br>
<br>
N.</blockquote></div></div>