Diane Cabell wrote: > Joop Teernstra wrote: > > > I agree with Ellen, that there is much merit in the idea of limiting ICANN > > membership to the assigned name and number stakeholders. > > > What about corporate holders? Should they be permitted to vote in the at-large? > Beware of administrative nightmares. Who wants to spend eternity arguing over which applicant is a stakeholder and which applied for no reason (not likely, btw)? If someone thinks she wants to be a member, that should be enough UNLESS we can apply some MECHANICAL criteria, such as requiring an e-mail address (which suits me).
- [IFWP] ICANN Membership Joop Teernstra
- Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership Diane Cabell
- Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership/Self selection works... Weisberg
- Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership/Self selection w... Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership Karl Auerbach
- Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership Michael Sondow
- Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership William X. Walsh
- Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membersh... Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership Karl Auerbach
- Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership Michael Sondow
- [IFWP] What I would have said... Karl Auerbach
- Re: [IFWP] What I would have said... Bill Lovell
- Re: [IFWP] What I would have said... Gene Marsh
