[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
At 14:46 7/02/99 +0000, Daniel Kaplan gave a constructive critique:
>A 14:51 07/02/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra a écrit :
>1. It is the easiest way to create a real electoral roll.
>2. Low cost and simplicity of administration/verification (a tick-box for
>an extra contribution at the time of (re)registration.)
>True. However, this also goes for IP address holders, which should (IMHO)
>in any case be added even in your model.
No objection. Don't most of them have DN's anyway?
>4. The Net is a very open communication tool. The interested student with
>the email account can still contribute her idea's freely and convince
>others with good argument. If voting becomes the real issue, then there
>will be democratic organisations that can represent the disenfranchised. I
>am also proposing that "all users" can be given a voice via petition and
>This is one of the possibilities I try to capture in my own
>I have a question, however, on "democratic organisations". How do you (or
>don't you) acknowledge one? Do you give them one, or several votes? We have
>not been able to figure that out in the MAC.
I don't have the best answer either. Their organisation, as a DN holder,
can be a member with one vote.
Their voices can be heard through the DN holder.
We could also have a class of non-voting members for people who are
interested in the issues, but not so involved (yet) that they actually have
registered a DN.
>5. I am afraid that ordinary Domain Name Owners will not join, if they feel
>that "it's all a sham anyway"
>To get enough real members is a major consideration. If the membership base
>is too small, capture looms large.
>Thus my suggestion: do not limit membership to domain names / IP address
>holders, but give them preferential treatment and be proactive in getting
>them to join.
Yes. This comes close to what I say above. Preferential treatment: the
right to vote for Board Members.
>6. Giving the vote to "all users" pretends to create that "World
>Government" that you would wish to avoid.
>7. It is not proper to give a vote to those who have no "skin" in the
>system. It may go at the expense of those who do.
>Right. But one could argue that setting up a low-but-not-too-low
>fee/contribution *is* skin. And means that it is not a world government,
>since in a world (democratic) government, you get a vote just by being of
"Skin" of a (say) $35 contribution is very different from the "skin" of
your own Domain. People do not really become aware of the issues unless
they can empathise with the problems of the the lack of security of a (much
larger) investment in a website, have been attacked by a TM owner, have
registered a TM themselves, have been treatened with deletion by a
registry, or threatened by an telco-ISP with phone cutoff over a billing
dispute re a DN.
And I'm not even talking about the issues on the horizon. (crypto and
>8. The DNSO can be the vehicle for input from organisations representing
>This is pushing the problem to some other entity. DNSO applications does
>not seem to be taking that path anyway, and your argument in favor on DN
>holders-only membership could also apply to DNSO.
I know. Especially if the DNSO is still going to be part of the legal
entity of ICANN, the issue of ICANN membership is key.
And yes, in the DNSO I have also argued for DN owners' membership only,
with a similar provision to look at "email-only" users' interests by way of