The discussion regarding ESNE continues...
At the Landa Kongreso Humphrey Tonkin suggested that for UEA and ELNA the model of membership and newsletter was also failing. He was strongly advocating for a model that, in lieu of sending a generic newsletter, instead sent updates about particular campaigns coupled with requests for donations. These could be sent regularly or more frequently and could include an update regarding organizational information, but the focus would be requesting support for specific goals, either through donations or participation in some activity. Anyway, that is my interpretation of what Humphrey was suggesting.
I see a lot of potential value in that course of action. Rather than encouraging people to give only a membership fee, people can give money anytime. Instead of requesting money for generic "support" you provide specific goals that people can agree with. It also requires you to develop some specific goals before requesting support. It might also be possible to measure support by tracking donations received toward particular goals.
What we're doing now isn't working. I don't see any participation organized around the current newsletter. I haven't seen anyone joining ESNE or coming to meetings because of Verda Lumo. At the same time, I don't want this to be seen as an attack against Verda Lumo or the hard work that Allan has done -- I think it's the whole approach that is failing and, primarily, because of changes in society rather than anything we've done or not done.
Interestingly, there is a huge argument on the UEA mailing list between rauxmistoj and finvenkistoj. The 
UEA 2003 ''Rezolucio'' describes a goal of UEA being "the conservation of linguistic pluralism within states and in the relations between states". The finkvenkistoj argue this represents supporting multiple languages between states -- exactly what finvenkistoj believe Esperanto was conceived to eliminate. It's a tough question. This statement seems to argue that the world would be better with no international language than with a national language (e.g. English) for an International language. Several people have resorted to arguing what Zamenhof said (or would have said). The world has changed a lot since Zamenhof. I think there's an increased appreciation now for the cultural value of multiple languages, but it's not an appreciation that is universally shared.