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

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

Antony Van Couvering a écrit:

> As a member of the team that put together the Paris draft, we "kicked the
> can" on DNSO membership issues by saying that membership in the DNSO was a
> subset of ICANN membership.  The mechanism we thought of was that when
> someone applied to become an ICANN member, they would "tick a box" to become
> a member of the DNSO as well.  We thought that it was outside of our
> expertise and knowledge to determine what a member would be, and that it
> would be presumptuous to come up with a definition, especially with the MAC
> working out these difficult issues.  We basically wanted a very open
> membership, and we wanted to allow all ICANN members to become members of
> the DNSO, and we couldn't envisage a situation where someone would be
> allowed to become a member of the DNSO and *not* a member of ICANN.  

This has been my position as well since these discussions began. I
probably was never able to formulate it so well as Antony has done.
I objected strongly to separate incorporation based upon the same
foundation that Antony has expressed here, and the consideration he
has given to the eventual adoption by the ICANN members of DNSO
membership, and the argument devolving from this to holding in
abeyance a formal definition of the DNSO's membership criteria and
organization, as in the Paris draft, is one of that drafts major
attractions over its competitor, and one that should not, in my
opinion, be sacrificed to any compromise between them.