>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Diane Cabell ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:36:12 -0400 (EDT) > >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 20 17:36:10 1999 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (hulaw5.law.harvard.edu [140.247.200.68]) > by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5B0F029 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:36:09 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from law.harvard.edu ([140.247.216.46] (may be forged)) > by hulaw5.law.harvard.edu (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA29339 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:29:54 -0400 (EDT) >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:35:37 -0400 >From: Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (WinNT; U) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [IFWP] ICANN Membership >References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > >Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> > > 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 > >> 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. > >I understood Ellen to be proposing that the at-large membership be limited to domain >and address holders, most of which are commercial concerns(*unverified assertion). >Under her suggestion, only the owner could vote, not the owner's employees. I was >asking whether corporate owners should be permitted to vote, thereby reducing the >essentially "individual" status of the at-large and turning it into another voice for >commercial interests. > >The MAC considered the resources required to verify corporate status and legitimacy >(the ability to abuse membership by spoofing additional fake associationsto gain extra >votes was a concern) and it was a cost that we didn't recommend undertaking (how do >you *disprove* the validity of corporate papers in a language you can't even read). > >Diane Cabell >Berkman Fellow >Harvard Law School >http://www.mama-tech.com > > > > -- Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
