[ga-full] RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.net>]

At 01:59 PM 3/30/00 +0930, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>At 02:56 30.03.00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>Joop identifies a point that should be discussed, IMHO.
>>What will be the relationship btw. GA and @large?
>>What will be the composition of the @large, and is there an overlap with
>>  the GA? What part of the @large-Members will be interested in
>>participating in the DNSO/GA?
>
>In my (biased) opinion, the At Large is beyond our control, and it is 
>impossible for us to predict what the At Large is going to be.
>
>I think most GA members will be At Large members (they want to be heard 
>there too), but that the opposite is unlikely, if only because the GA does 
>not have the wish or the means to have membership drives.
>
>An At-Large member is expected to vote for representatives who choose 
>candidates to the ICANN board once a year or so. A GA member is (I think) 
>expected to take a position on various issues brought to a GA vote - 
>probably on the order of magnitude of once a month or so.

Does this mean that membership registrations may be duplicated (At Large is 
a separate member registration from GA)?

Surely all members should have a unique identifier as an At Large ICANN 
member, and then attributes are assigned to that identifier to identify the 
membership groups/organizations they subscribe to within ICANN (GA, etc.). 
This establishes the relationships without any prior knowledge of the 
membership composition. In addition, an X.509 certificate can be issued to 
each member for signing purposes (voting etc). Unfortunately this moves the 
discussion up to ICANN board level. This may not be politically correct but 
is very easy to maintain using an LDAP directory system.

--
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