Re: [Membership] The People's Republic of ICANN?

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 15:36 12/02/99 +0100, Daniel Kaplan wrote:

[lots of things with which I concur]
>- Fees:
>  · Individual: de minimis (but not zero).
>  · Corporations: more significant.
>  . Associations, NGOs: low.
>  · Modulated according to countries' per capita income.
>
- I think corporations should pay the same fees as individuals. Otherwise
you create a "corporations" constituency that will demand power according
to their fees. The same for associations and NGO's. Their members can
become individual members.
-This modulation according to per capita income is ,IMHO a bad idea. It
sounds politically correct, but in reality, the on-line population in much
of the developing world are rich kids, and rich companies, often a lot
richer than the average "first world" DN owner. It also would create a
"second class", something that these jetsetters might resent. <g>.   It is
not right that the others will subsidize these members. 

The common tao in developing countries access the net through busy
cybercafes. They do not have domain names. If we restrict membership to DN
owners, which I myself have suggested, these people will not be represented.
Actually, they are the only ones really in need of a small constitutional
voice, over and above what the others have. 
It will be their cybercafe's that will be the ones to join ICANN .

It also presumes that members will have fixed, single residences.
An Internet Domain Name is not a territorial entity. Or were you planning
to assign yearly a GNP for each ccTLD? An unnecessary nightmare of complexity.
Lets keep it simple: one lightweight fee for all members equally.

--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html