On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> The two issues are completely othorgonal.
>
> In the current draft, *any* entity can become a member of the DNSO,
> whether they have a domain name or not, as long as they can
> demonstrate a legal identity. That would be a natural person,
> corporation, or any other legally constituted entity. They are
> required to pay a basic fee, constrained to be low (something
> between $10-$100/year).
A question: What in your opinion would constitute demonstration of "legal
identity" keeping in mind the global nature of the organization?
> With a completely flat membership model you have a "tyranny of the
> majority" problem, where the majority abuses the rights of a
> minority. In the US constitution this is dealt with with the "Bill
> of Rights" -- a statement of rights that the majority simply cannot
> abridge. [At the Monterrey meeting I presented a short paper on a
> "Bill of Rights" model for dealing with the "Tyranny of the majority
> problem". It wasn't adopted. I think the reason is the difficulty
> of getting agreement on what "rights" are involved.
Another way in which the Constitution deals with this issue is the
seperation of powers between seperate branches of government.
> A constituency model is another way to get around the "Tyranny of
> the Majority" problem -- A minority (such as registries) get a
> guaranteed spot at the table that cannot be voted away by the
> majority. This is by no means a perfect solution -- there is no
> perfect solution.
My personal feeling is that a bicameral model might be a reasonable approach
to this issue. I believe ISOC employs this very model, with individual
memberships and corporate memberships. This would seem like a fair
approach to the DNSO, and a reasonable compromise between a completely
flat model, and one that is constituency based and involving complex
weighting schemes. It also takes much of the admistrative hassle out of
figuring out who is a member of what constituency(and validation of) for
purposes of DNSO membership. Each branch has equal voting power. Of course
there is the issue of possible conflicting votes between the two, and some
sort of "tiebreaker" mechanism would be necessary.
Thoughts?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v
CTO (925) 377-1212 v
NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f
Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
