RE: [ga] Is ICANN replacing the ga with its new site?

["Alf Hansen" <Alf.Hansen@uninett.no>]

Hi all,

It is certainly correct that the At-large membership and the GA of the DNSO
are two separate things.

The way ICANN are managing At-large memberships, is in my opinion an
excellent example of how we also could manage DNSO memberships: There must
be some kind of rules for DNSO membership, and when applying for membership,
some information has to be registered. If the applicant is accepted as
member of DNSO, she will have some rights (to be in DNSO GA, to vote, etc.).
Note that the membership managemenet can be handled without introducing a
membership fee.

However, these arrangements need money to be carried out. The At-large has
stated how they will get money for this. The DNSO has to do the same. We can
rely on external contributions (as the At-large), or we can have a
membership fee. Or both.

We got to get our membership database in shape. Even if the membership is
open to anyone. A distribution list is not a membership database. The ga
distribution list should be produced from the membership database.

Best regards,
Alf H
.NO

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Kent
> Crispin
> Sent: 27. februar 2000 08:07
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Is ICANN replacing the ga with its new site?
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 01:35:54AM -0500, WmsPtur@aol.com wrote:
> >     It appears that ICANN has decided that the solution to
> deciding what the
> > ga list membership is or is not lies in creating something
> entirely new to
> > supplant it.
>
> The creation of the At-Large membership has absolutely nothing to do
> with the travails of the GA.  The At-Large membership of ICANN and the
> GA of the DNSO are two totally separate things.  ICANN has been working
> on the At-Large membership for quite some time; it is described in the
> bylaws; setting up the at-large membership is a requirement that must be
> met before DOC will transfer control of the root zone to ICANN.
>
>
> >  If you haven't visited ICANN in the last few days, you might
> > want to.
> >     ICANN has just set up, as of February 25,  a new at large category
> > "individual membership"  website, where they give out tracking numbers,
> > request that you use only one email address and even provide encrypted
> > access.
>
> It is a requirement that each member of the AL must be a single unique
> human bing.  They don't care if you have multiple addresses -- just
> that you use only one address in interactions with ICANN.
>
> >     Just so we know who is here and over there as they begin to
> ramp up that
> > membership, we could all volunteer to list our names, snail
> mail addresses,
> > and all the email sites we might use here.  I have a number of email
> > addresses, as does most everyone with any quantity of mail.
> The 573 messages
> > I just went through on my aol account from 2/2-23/2000 on this list are
> > matched by hundreds of others at various locations.
> >     I don't see why this list or any other should suggest that
> anyone limit
> > oneself to just one email address, anymore than one would
> reasonably be told
> > to limit one's physical location to a certain locale to remain
> a "member".
>
> A residency requirement is extremely common in normal political votes.
> It is extremely common, also, that you must be a member of a mailing
> list before you can post to it.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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