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

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

At 05:10 PM 2/4/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 03:40:59PM +1100, Greg Crew wrote:
>> The application of a small "levy" per DN registration has certainly been
>> considered as a funding mechanism for ICANN. It has some obvious
>> I am not sure if payment of a levy, embedded in the registration fee
>> charged by the registrar, can be considered as a membership fee also. I
>> suspect membership might be something that needs to be applied for, in full
>> knowledge of the implications. I doubt if such a complication would be
>> welcome to registrars.
>> However, DN holders, having paid the levy, and applying for membership,
>> could be considered to have paid the membership fee.
>> Greg.
>A small fee does act as a filter for completely frivolous 
>memberships, but there are additional measures that could be taken. 
>For example, has there been any discussion of the notion of an
>"membership agreement"? Requiring a signed application for
>membership, faxed or postal mailed, has a couple of benefits: it
>gives a weak additional form of authentication, it would make it
>somewhat difficult for a single individual to submit a hundred
>applications; it would (as mentioned) give a weak screen for
>frivolous members, and finally and most importantly, it could spell
>out clearly what the rights and obligations of membership were, in a
>legally binding way.  In particular, it could specify rules of
>conduct for discussion, rules that could be enforced. 

We are trying to stay away from paper communications (post or fax), for
cost and time reasons. ICANN should conduct its communications on-line as
far as possible. I envisage posting conditions on a web site, and requiring
applicants for membership to state in the e-mail application that they have
read and accept them.

>Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
>kent@songbird.com				lonesome." -- Mark Twain