[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
Sounds clear, simple and easy to implement. It also has the advantage that
it doesn't make too many assumptions about things we don't know, like who
(how many) would *want* to be members?
At 05:43 PM 12/02/99 -0500, George Conrades wrote:
>I'm in favor of where you're coming out on this.
>From: Daniel Kaplan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 3:23 PM
>Subject: Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
>A 17:17 11/02/99 -0000, Dr Nii Quaynor a écrit :
>>>My own suggestion: no classes. Only people as members. Anyone coming up
>>>with the initiation fee and the necessary identification can be a member.
>There are 3 suggestions there, which should be analyzed separately:
>- Everyone can join, provided they come up with, etc. As I said in an
>earlier message, although I was more inclined to limiting membership to
>domain names and IP address holders in the beginning, I now tend to agree.
>- Only people as members. I disagree. Most end-users of domain names and IP
>address (at least for now) are corporations, associations, public-service
>agencies, etc. I'm not talking about Internet professionals, but all others
>who have no reason to join SOs, but want to have a say as users. Letting
>their employees join (although it should and can not be prevented) is not
>the same, because (i) Organizations are not just sums of individuals and
>(ii) There is some hypocrisy in presenting one's position as personal while
>it is in reality that of one's organization. Organizations have to be
>allowed to join as members.
>- No classes. As siegfired has repeatedly pointed out, there are advantages
>and drawbacks to that. If there are no classes, those constituencies which
>have less members will not be heard, but also, capture by an active
>minority is easier. If there are, we face the problem of determining which
>are those classes, how many votes they get... And we build in inter-class
>So my suggestion(s) is/are: No classes. Individuals and organizations can
>be members and get one vote each. Anyone coming up with the initiation fee
>and the necessary identification can be a member.
>And I add: be especially proactive towards the 1st-level end-users of
>ICANN, ie, domain names and IP address holders. Create a way though which
>they can join ICANN at the same time as they register. Include fees in
>registration. Mail them an offer to become members as soon as registration
>is taken into account.
>Thus, replying to Antony Van Couvering: (please do not take that as a
>support for the Paris draft. I don't know which DNSO draft has my support)
>The idea in the Paris draft, that DNSO (why not all SOs?) members are at
>first ICANN members, then can choose to join 0, 1, 2, 3 SOs, is a good one
>** Les eLectrophées - trophées du commerce électronique - 19/3/99
>Daniel Kaplan Consultant
>5, rue de la Véga - 75012 Paris - France
>Tel +33 (0)1 5333 8881 Fax +33 (0)1 5333 8882
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"