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.)

2.0 MECHANICS 

2.1  What identification/authentication will ICANN need to register a member? (none, telephone number, e-mail address, proof of DN ownership, sworn affidavit (Michael Weinberg)?) (Greg Crew, Dec. 26)  To vote? 

2.2   Should there be a permanent ICANN Membership Committee, whose function would be to admit members to the At-Large membership? (Michael Sondow, Jan. 11) 
 

2.0 MECHANICS 

2.1  What identification/authentication will ICANN need to register a member? (none, telephone number, e-mail address, proof of DN ownership, sworn affidavit (Michael Weinberg)?) (Greg Crew, Dec. 26)  To vote? 
 
• If everyone who had an interest in doing so wished to vote, what is so difficult about a membership registration procedure based on credit card/Social Security or insurace/ (or some other form of official ID) with assigned passwords?  (sotoris, Jan. 17)
 
• Many people where I come from have Internet access but *don't* have credit cards.  Our social security and insurance numbers are also quite different from what you may know.  (Nii Quaynor, Jan. 17)
 
• By requiring each person to apply for 'Netizenship of ICANN," even the same email address being shared by two or more people can still be used as then it would be the User ID and Password they were assigned during 'Netizenship Petition that actually "casts their vote."  (Syl, Jan. 17)

 

2.2   Should there be a permanent ICANN Membership Committee, whose function would be to admit members to the At-Large membership? (Michael Sondow, Jan. 11) 
 

• Someone, or some group, will have to act on applications for membership. Who will they be? Under what crieria will they decide on applications? Will they be responsible to the membership or to the ICANN BoD? Will there be an appeal procedure for their decisions?

In keeping with my proposal to the incipient DNSO for a Membership Committee independent from the DNSO's Names Council and responsible directly to the membership in order to ensure that the membership application process does not become a means by which the Names Council (in the case of the DNSO) reinforces support for its decisions, I would like to propose the establishment of a permanent ICANN Membership Committee, on the following lines: . . .
 

• It may just be a matter of wording, but how about a membership *function* plus an internal review process, especially if membership acceptance is almost routine.  Remember that members will ultimately be paying for the costs of this committee. Maybe the internal review process would be performed by such a committee.   (Esther Dyson, Jan. 12)

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.