RE: [Membership] ICANN: The Issue of Membership

[Roberto Gaetano <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>]

Joop,

You wrote:
> At 19:44 18/01/99 -0500, BRPWIT@aol.com wrote:
> >Why is it E-Mail holders - Should it not be domain holders ? peop[e that
> rent
> >a name only and have no stake in storage / web page /name etc may not
> have
> >desire or interest in the nuts and bolts.
> >
> >People that sign up by the ton to be on the net and have an e-mail name,
> are
> >not the ones i believe are the stakeholders.
> >Just a thought
> >thanks 
> >steve witkin
> > 
> 
> Dear MAC participants,
> 
> I have  expressed this point of view on several occasions. Especially the
> DNSO membership should not be stuffed with non-taxpaying "email only"
> members, who only serve to dilute the interests of real DN stakeholders.
> 
> There is no question that the millions of DN holders do not form a broad
> enough basis for decisionmaking and there can always be mechanisms
> (petition, referendum)  to look after the interests of email-only internet
> users, without giving them the right to elect Board Members.
> 
Restricting membership to Domain Name holders may be appropriate (I am not
telling I agree, I only tell it has some rationale behind) for the DNSO.
OTOH, I don't see the reason for ICANN membership: ICANN is more than Domain
Names (even if we sometimes tend to forget).
Why not Address holder, or Protocol User (which includes all E-Mail-only
users)?

Once you open the door, you don't know where you end up with...

Regards
Roberto

--------------------------
"To do otherwise is inconsistent with the requirements of the White Paper"
(various authors - standard sentence to prove a point when all other means
have failed)