Re: How not to define membership classes

[Onno Hovers <onno@surfer.xs4all.nl>]

Milton Mueller wrote:
> The INTA proposal creates special membership classes. Surprise,
> surprise, one of those special classes is "trademark and 
> anticounterfeiting Interests."

> Now, I do recognize that trademark interests form a legitimate part of
> the policy debate surrounding domain names. But any attempt to grant the
> representatives of those views special representation is illegitimate.
> One could just as well claim that advocates of freedom of expression should
> also have special representation.

Milton has a good point there. Trademark interests should not be put in
a special membership class.

I also think that the registry membership class should be merged with the
registrar membership class into a domain name services provider class.
Putting gTLD registries in a special membership class and registries in
another will just be stacking the deck, since the relative role and power
of registries and registries is one of the hottest issues. On one end
there is the all powerful registry model of the ORSC and on the other
end there is the all powerful registrar model of CORE. And the ccTLDs
have special interests of their own. 

If specific special interests are given special representation, the
DNSO can not be viewed as a fair organization. A better division into
membership classes would be in (my opinion):

1. domain name service provider membership class
	ccTLD registries, existing and prospective gTLD registries,
	registrars
	internet providers

2. special interest membership class
	special interest organizations (INTA, DNRC, EFF, ...)

3. general membership class
	other businesses
	individuals

Regards,
-- 
Onno Hovers (onno@surfer.xs4all.nl)
"We'd better jump under the bandwagon before the train leaves the station."
 -- Dilbert's Boss