MAC Bulletin Board

This working document reflects the ongoing progress of queries and comments by members of the ICANN Membership Advisory Committee and other contributors.  It does not represent final conclusions or recommendations of the committee or its members; indeed, many members have suggested various conflicting alternative approaches for consideration.  Where possible, contributions are identified by author and date.  To contribute to the Membership Advisory Committee process, please subscribe to its public discussion list.  Or, post a comment corresponding to an individual discussion topic or question by clicking on the corresponding .  (View all such comments here.)

Question Outline

1.0  MEMBERS 

1.1  Who can be a member. (Any qualification such as holding a DN, unique e-mail address, having an on-line presence?)  (Greg Crew, Dec. 26) 
 
1.1.1 Is membership automatic or voluntary? (Daniel Kaplan, Dec. 29) 
 
1.2  If domain names or email addresses are a vehicle, then how do we manage one individual/entity with multiplicity of names? (Nii Quaynor, Dec. 27) 

1.3  How is geography, population, financial standing and language to be balanced. How should this change over time as these attributes vary?  How does this tie in to the geographic diversity requirements of the ICANN Bylaws?  (Nii Quaynor, Dec. 27) 

1.4  One class or different classes of membership? (large corporations, small corporations, associations, individuals, demographics, TLD? (Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Dec. 18)) (Greg Crew, Dec. 26) 

1.5  Rights and obligations of membership - same for all or differentiated (depending on whether a SO, corporation, association, individual?)  What are the liabilities of a member (under California law)?  (Dec. 22 committee teleconference) 

1.6  Is there/should there be an off-line constituency?  How are people without domain names or email addresses represented? these  may include universal access users of community centers, telecenters, business centers etc.  How will emerging communities not be excluded including those from developing countries as well as inner city communities in developed countries?  (Nii Quaynor, Dec. 27) 

1.7 Is it desirable to put in place structures or mechanisms designed to minimize the risk that a determined group could capture all or a majority of the at large ICANN board seats?  If so, how can that be done? (Mike Weinberg, Jan. 1) 

1.8 Should multiple employees of a business be prevented from being members?  (Mike Weinberg, Jan. 1) 
 

1.0  MEMBERS 

1.1  Who can be a member. (Any qualification such as holding a DN, unique e-mail address, having an on-line presence?)  (Greg Crew, Dec. 26) 
 
• Possible approaches (Greg Crew, Dec)
 
a. No restriction. How could we justify restricting membership?

b. A minimal condition must be on-line access. This is the only way ICANN will (can) ommunicate.

c. To control voting, members must each have a unique on-line identity.

d. We need efficient administrative processes. How can ICANN register members world-wide? One answer - do not register them. Anyone with on-line access can read our web site, and anyone with a unique on-line ID can vote for director candidates.

e. How to accommodate new/future Internet users? As people gain access, they have access to ICANN information, and can participate.
 

• Its membership should reflect the extent and limitations of ICANN's powers.  ICANN's membership should not extend beyond domain names and IP address holders. I see no reason why the "offline community" (ie,  97% of the world's population) should join what is, after all, a mostly administrative body.  (Daniel Kaplan, Dec. 29)
 
• Where does ICANNs power/responsibility end? With what it operates or with the effects of its operations? ICANN's responsibilities for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions ought to include its effects of society as a whole. The 3% "administrative community" should not be allowed to capture the system away from the 97% "offline community". There will be significant social and development impacts on the "offline community" by the actions of the "administrative community". The membership representation of the "offline community" needs not be direct. We should find a way to get the 97% on-board to make ICANN even stronger.  (Nii Quaynor, Jan. 2)
 
• How do we account for off-liners needs?  Perhaps an ombudsman or consumer representative?  There are many levels of possible obligation.  Is the minimum level that ICANN ensure that off-liners can voice their concerns?  Is it that ICANN must ensure that no unreasonable barriers prevent off-liners from getting online?   (Diane Cabell)
 
•  - is there anybody who can be invited to the party (or will nobody come?)

 - do you know real names of persons (or org) who will be at large members? (from my personal view I hardly find some, all people I know which are interested in the matter belong to some organisation and therfore will already be represented {or otherwise will have multiple votes} )
 - will that ALM also join ALM(DNSO)? What is the diff between both? (that can only be answered after we described WHO is it/she/him.)  (Siegfried Langenbach, Jan. 5)
 
• The limitation that I would propose on the total numbers is a qualification for membership: the individual ownership of a second or third level Domain Name.  Company Domains are represented by one company representative.  Those who wish to participate in the governance of the Names and Numbers should at least have Names or Numbers. This is in keeping with the limits on ICANN's

mission.  . . .  Existing Domain Name owners can be invited to join via email. Although this will involve mass emailing, as it concerns an important offering of Rights this can be considered acceptable.  All TLD Registries or their registrars should offer an ICANN membership option upon renewal or registration of each Domain Name (one membership per individual, not per Domain Name) by way of a tick box or a line in an email template. (Joop Teernstra, Jan. 14) (full comments at http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html)
 
• . . . Whatever the decision, one group I believe needs to have the ability to vote and that's people who have bought a domain name.  They are the people most to have a "vested interest' in such matters, or at least enough to have an informed opinion about the matter.  Additional types of people could be added to them"  (Lee Bumgarner, Jan. 13)
 
• However the ICANN system is implemented, it needs to take into account the large number of small users.  (Lee Bumgarner, Jan. 14)
 
• Perhaps it would be better for ICANN to recognize a global electorate of e-mail account holders who, simply by having such an account, would qualify to vote for a "House" of ICANN representatives.  . . . Perhaps the powers of the Internet "House" the elect should be, in effect, an intermediate body of delegates with limited rights, authorities, and responsibilities.  (Joseph LeBaron, Jan. 17)
 
• Everyone with an email address has an equal vote, potential voters contacted via links from major sites and search engines, and chain email.  (Rus Postel, Jan. 16)
 
• Keeping it simple argues for membership based simply on e-mail addresses.  (Joseph LeBaron, Jan. 17)
 
• One email address does not equate to one person, or to one identity.  It would be almost impossible to prevent "stuffing the ballot box."  (macleod, Jan. 17)
 

1.1.1 Is membership automatic or voluntary?  (Daniel Kaplan, Dec. 29) 
 
• Automatic membership is natural for a country's electorate, but for this very reason it would probably contradict most countries' laws on nonprofit corporations.  In principle, too, it is hard to figure why someone should automatically become a member of ICANN just because he's replaced his/her ordinary phone with an Internet telephone.   At the same time, the process and fees for membership sould not create artificial or arbitrary barriers to participation.  (Daniel Kaplan)
 

1.2  If domain names or email addresses are a vehicle, then how do we manage one individual/entity with multiplicity of names?  (Nii Quaynor, Dec. 27) 

1.3  How is geography, population, financial standing and language to be balanced. How should this change over time as these attributes vary?  How does this tie in to the geographic diversity requirements of the ICANN Bylaws?  (Nii Quaynor, Dec. 27) 

1.4  One class or different classes of membership? (large corporations, small corporations, associations, individuals, demographics, TLD?  (Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Dec. 18)) (Greg Crew, Dec. 26) 

• Possible advantages are that groups might take responsibility for authenticating individuals, collecting fees, and other administration
 
• Possible approaches (Greg Crew, Dec. 30)
 
a. Recognise that corporations will have access to many on-line IDs, and thus multiple votes. Same comment for Associations.

b. No classes, accept reality of a.

c. Define classes as fee-paying, non-fee paying.

d. Fee-paying would be "real" members in the legal sense, registered, able to vote on corporate issues.

e. Non-fee "members" would be members for the purpose of voting for At Large directors only.

f. Fees could be set, with associated voting rights, to encourage corporations/Associations to register as members (rather than use control of many on-line IDs to gain voting power). If this seems "undemocratic" it should be remembered there are many more individuals than corporations (if they choose to be interested).

g. SOs will be "real" members (as defined in d.) but without the right to vote for At Large directors. (SO members can vote. We could not prevent it).
 

• I would have electorate membership divided into a "senate" made of individuals who owned domain names and a "house" made up of individuals who just had an interest in Net issues.  (Lee Bumgarner, Jan. 14)
 
• As for corprate or organizational membership -- I'd simply say "thanks but no thanks.  We only take individuals as members."  (Karl Auerbach, Jan. 17)

1.5  Rights and obligations of membership - same for all or differentiated (depending on whether a SO, corporation, association, individual?)  What are the liabilities of a member (under California law)?  (Dec. 22 committee teleconference) 

1.6  Is there/should there be an off-line constituency?  How are people without domain names or email addresses represented? these  may include universal access users of community centers, telecenters, business centers etc.  How will emerging communities not be excluded including those from developing countries as well as inner city communities in developed countries?  (Nii Quaynor, Dec. 27) 

1.7 Is it desirable to put in place structures or mechanisms designed to minimize the risk that a determined group could capture all or a majority of the at large ICANN board seats?  If so, how can that be done?  (Mike Weinberg, Jan. 1) 

1.8 Should multiple employees of a business be prevented from being members?  (Mike Weinberg, Jan. 1) 
 

Thanks to the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School for assistance in administering this bulletin board and to Velvet Cafe for providing the discussion board software and support.