> > This was also the concept of my model for NewCo membership.
> > I agree with Ellen, that there is much merit in the idea of limiting ICANN
> > membership to the assigned name and number stakeholders.
> > I suspect this idea will find sympathy in Joe Sims ear too. <g>
>
> What about corporate holders? Should they be permitted to vote in the at-large?
In the IDNO context a similar question arose: How do we handle individual
who "own" domain names indirectly via a privately held corporation or
other intermediary, but fully controlled, entity.
We resolved this by giving membership to anyone who could demonstrate
sufficient control over a domain name that as a practical matter it is
equivalent to ownership. Thus, if I am the sole stockholder in a
corporation and I can instruct that corporation to dispose of the domain
name, then that amounts to "ownership" and is thus grounds for IDNO
membership.
Thus, for example, if a person from IBM were to apply and that person
could demonstrate the unalloyed discretion to drop or sell ibm.com, then
that person could be an IDNO member. Of course, in large corporations,
it is unlikely for any one person, even the CEO, to have unfettered
discretion over the disposition of what have become valued assets.
As for ICANN's General Membership itself -- Corporations can be fully
represented there via the people they send. If I were a corporation, I'd
be happy to know that I can send as many people as I want to back my
position rather than being limited to a single vote.
--karl--
