[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?
Daniel and all,
Daniel Kaplan wrote:
> A 17:36 11/02/99 +0000, jeff Williams a écrit :
> > Is it your contention Daniel that most individuals are members of
> >organizations, companies, ect.? If so, on what basis are you making
> >this assertion? Please be detailed.
> No, it is not. This is why I support letting individuals as well as
> organizations join.
Very well. But you still did not answer my question completely.
> > Why must organizations be allowed to join as members? What is the
> >logical justification?
> See my previous message in answer to Karl Auerbach.
I read it carefully. It still does not provide and adequate justification
Organizations to be part of the Membership Organization on an equal
footing. In fact I fail to see how that could possibly be accomplished,
given that and Individual is just that, and Individual, and an organization,
contains two or more individuals, as a reasonable definition, hence has more
unbalanced influence on decision making than an individual would have,
even if they both have only one vote.
> > How is this contention in line with the White Paper?
> Please provide me with the quotations that say what I support is not.
The quotations are not exactly stated but implied in the White Paper. You
can look them up yourself as well as I can. However, "Bottom-Up" Stakeholder
driven and determined structure, indicates to me anyway that it starts, and
is based on the Individual, not any organization as a voting entity.
> > If there are not classes of membership (Constituencies) as a part of the
> >structure of a membership Organization, how than would there be a less
> >"Heard" situation be possible? Please be specific in your answer, as this
> >seems to be less than obvious.
> Please note that in the end, I'm skeptical about classes of membership in
> ICANN. However:
> (1) I know this is politically incorrect, but there is such a thing as
> affirmative action, in several fields, because in some cases, the majority
> abuses the minority; Or an active and dominant, more mobilized minority
> abuses the less vocal majority.
They can only be abused, one side of the other if the Majority allows for
that abuse. Agreed it does, and has happened however.
> (2) Suppose registries had no other way of being heard than joining ICANN's
> at large membership (this is just an example).
But they do or could. So I see this as a canard, rather than a reality.
> There are far, far less
> registries (or even registry employees) than there are users. They would
> have a legitimate claim to become a class, perhaps not to rule the game,
> but at least to have some weight in it.
I understand your point of view here, and in a sense it is warranted. But
what all this is about is SERVICE TOO the Registrant or otherwise,
Stakeholder, not the converse as you seem to suggest here. What you seem
to propose is an allowance of the tail wagging the dog, rather than the dog or
the Stakeholder wagging the tail.
> > Whom determines how much the initiation fee should be? How is this
> >initiation fee determined? What and whom are the ones that determine
> >what is necessary identification? Who sets this criterion?
> > Whom and how are the registration requirements determined? What is
> >the criterion?
> These are legitimate questions to which I don't have a definitive answers,
> otherwise I would have posted them.
> I could answer the "whom?" questions by saying: "Isn't it what we're trying
> to figure out in this list?"
We already know the answer don't we. The answer is simple. It is the
Stakeholder. The hard question is to determine what is a fair amount
to charge to be a member. However that answer is not that difficult to
arrive at if you look at solving this problem from a global perspective.
> In posts which can be found on the Berkman center's "models" page, I
> advocated the following, which I admit requires more detail:
> - Registration is online.
> - Registration requires:
> · Physical (not verified, but verifiable in case of a claim)
> and Internet address.
> · Payment of fees.
> - Fees:
> · Individual: de minimis (but not zero).
> · Corporations: more significant.
> . Associations, NGOs: low.
> · Modulated according to countries' per capita income.
> ** Les eLectrophées - trophées du commerce électronique - 19/3/99
> ** http://www.finances.gouv.fr/mission_commerce_electronique/trophees
> Daniel Kaplan Consultant
> email@example.com http://www.dkaplan.net
> 5, rue de la Véga - 75012 Paris - France
> Tel +33 (0)1 5333 8881 Fax +33 (0)1 5333 8882
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208