Re: How not to define membership classes

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

Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Uh, I see that somebody has cc-in a newsgroup.  I un-cc'd it.

I use a simple mail to news gateway to read those mailinglists that
interest me. Don't worry. These groups are private and not distributed
to usenet. But some netnews headers may slip in my messages.

>> 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.

> How about eliminating membership classes and organizational membership
> altogether?
> Classes are merely arbitrary categories.
> Classes create imbalances of power.
> Classes only serve to give classes with a small or cohesive population a
> bigger effective per-capita vote.
> The atomic unit of interest and representation is the individual human.
> Organizations and corporations are formed of, operated by, and
> owned by humans.

But the DNSO is not supposed to run a country. So the democratic
rules that are used to run some countries do not necessarily apply.
And note that one of the largest democracies in the world, the USA,
uses an equivalant of membership classes called states and congressional
districts.

Having only an individual membership is very unpractical. Most of the
fights about the policy of the DNS are fights between organizations and/or
corporations. So it is only logic that corporations and organizations
are allowed to be members of the DNSO. 

I am not sure if membership classes are really necessary. Once the DNSO
is in place a lot of corporations and organizations will join who are
now not expressing their voices in these mailinglists. But I feel strongly
that the division into membership classes should not be a way to 
influence the immediate decisions that the DNSO has to make. The goal
of any division into membership classes will have to be the long term
stability of the DNSO.

The logic of my division is that the companies that provide DNS services,
like registries, registrars and ISPs are the companies that the DNSO
has to regulate. Putting these companies into a special membership class
will ensure that the businesses which the DNSO is supposed to regulate
will have a voice. On the other hand, it ensures that other interests also
have a voice.

Apart from the relatively small group that directly provide DNS services,
there is a huge group of corporations and individuals that are affected
by the decisions of the DNSO. Because of their sheer number it is
inpractical to demand of them that all they participate in the DNSO. 
And if they all participate, they would outnumber the DNS service
providers. So it is more practical if all these corporations and
individuals unite in special interest organizations like INTA, DNRC,
EFF, ISOC, etc.. These organizations represent more corporations and
users than the DNSO will ever have as members.

But there may be some individuals and corporations that wish to have
their own voice in the DNSO. I think they should have that opportunity.
The logic behind the division between special interest organization
membership class and the general membership class is that individuals
and corporations should have a voice in the DNSO but they should
overshadow the much broader special interest organizations by their
numbers.

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