[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Membership] MAC reports and models-New URLs

I didn't mean just domain holders (and excluding the others you mentioned).
Those could be in addition to the domain holders.  Let's say the tax were $3
per domain, you could charge $10 for a non domain holder to join.

My comment was that the models seem to not necessarily give domain holders
membership.  In the open model anyone could join but a domain holder would
need to opt-in to the system.  Plus, those with more than one domain would
have more than one vote (if there is such voting).  In the In the second and
third model the domain holder (like anyone else) would pay an additional fee
or join an organization.  None of these models automatically make domain
holders members is the point I was trying to make.  In addition, the revenue
from an automatic domain tax is much more stable and predictable than the
models listed.

Russ Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-membership@ISI.EDU [mailto:owner-membership@ISI.EDU]On
Behalf Of Diane Cabell
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 9:42 PM
To: Membership
Subject: Re: [Membership] MAC reports and models-New URLs

The consensus is that the At Large membership should extend beyond the
of domain holders.  There are many individuals and organizations that are
impacted by names and numbers policies (and the implementation of protocols)
do not have domain names.  Personnel who work in the Internet industry, mail
users, people who have websites on hosted domains, etc.

Although a limited membership as you propose has not been ruled out, there
not seem to be much support on the MAC for it at the present time.  You are
absolutely right, however, that it would be much easier to administer.

Diane Cabell

a@help.org wrote:

> I notice there is no model based on membership as part of domain
> registration where a 'tax' is added to the registration fee.  Is this
> under consideration?  It seems to me that this would present the most
> of funding for ICANN since the income could be predicted with much more
> accuracy.  Plus, since verification would only depend on domain
> this would reduce the burden on ICANN for this.  Of course, the percentage
> of participation would be small.
> Russ smith
> http://consumer.net
> >We are beginning to consolidate the various streams of consciousness on
> >At-Large membership
> >These are all works in progress, so please continue to send your
> comments to membership@icann.org
> Crew's membership models are at
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/models.html
> Cabell's report on voting is at
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/report.html
> Diane Cabell

Diane Cabell

Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA