[ga-full] RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 08:26 AM 2/28/00 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>[snip]
>another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large membership 
>necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
>This would have a couple of advantages:
>- ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
>-[snip]
>Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own 
>membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large 
>membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing 
>to share at least some information.
> But it's an idea.

	This seems to me a good proposal; it's a way to solve the verification
problem that piggybacks on money somebody *else* is spending.  I don't
think we need our own membership rules.  The one additional criterion for
GA membership -- that the person be interested in domain name policy --
will be self-enforcing, since people who aren't interested won't
participate.  A question, though:  ICANN is addressing the verification
problem in part by issuing passwords (so that they know that the person
voting or posting as weinberg@msen.com really *is* weinberg@msen.com).
Would we want to adopt that aspect of their process as well?  And would
they share their passwords file?

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html