RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

I agree with Michael on this, not specifically because of the membership
 fees, but for a more general concern on the same subject: it will be 
unhealthy to define the GA Membership as a "subset" of the ICANN AtLarge
, at least in principle.

OTOH, I agree with Harald that it will be nice to use ICANN's work on 
identity verification for the GA. But this only means that we accept 
ICANN's AtLarge members without further verification.

We should leave the door open to the possibility that somebody would 
like to be a GA Member without being an ICANN Member (why one should be 
willing to do that, it escapes me, but the problem exists in principle).


In summary, individuals that want to join the GA as members can do so. 
If they are already ICANN Members, they are accepted without 
verification, if they don't, some "proof of existence" may be required.

BTW, it seems obvious to me that the additional cost related to the 
verification will be borne by the incumbent.

Best regards
Roberto


>I would be wary of hitching my cart to these oxen.  ICANN appears to 
view
>the current 'no-fee' memberships as temporary.  What happens when they
>start to charge?
>
>
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>> At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
>> >Harald, Michael,
>> >
>> >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web 
Interface could
>> >be an example for the GA membership.
>> >But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail 
to the
>> >pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web 
site)
>> >would cost too much for the GA.
>> >So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer 
themselves and
>> >for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should 
provide a
>> >domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain 
name
>> >holder is the same as the member.
>> 
>> and if they don't hold any domain names?
>> For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for
 the 
>> rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these 
days)
>> 
>> 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
>> - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that
 
>> weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
>> - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>                        Harald
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
>> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
>> 
>> 
>
>-- 
>
>A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's warm here.<--
>
>--
>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