Comments on ICC proposed changes

Antony Van Couvering (avc@interport.net)
Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:29:23 -0500


Comments interlarded.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-drafting@dnso.org [mailto:owner-drafting@dnso.org]On Behalf
> Of Kent Crispin
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 12:07 PM
> To: drafting@dnso.org
> Subject: icc comments in text
>
>
> Preliminary ICC comments on the
> Barcelona/Monterrey Application to ICANN.
>
>
> General Observations:
>
> 1. The general framework of the Barcelona/Monterey Proposal
> (BMP) provides a foundation which can underlie a unified
> submission to ICANN. A number of factors need further
> fleshing out and certain paragraphs will be the subject of
> further discussion.
>
> 2. The INTA by-laws proposal may provide some of the needed
> details.
>
> 3. An ICC text of general principles may also provide a
> needed chapeau - or context for the framework.
>
> 4. There is a need to review a number of items related to
> corporate structure which will have to be clarified by the
> ICANN Board.
>
> 5. Another major problem, which we encounter, is the
> continued circularity in nomination and approval. How to
> recognize the initial set of constituency representatives or
> Names Council participants remains a critical, and seemingly
> unsatisfactorily resolved issue.
>
> 6. Lastly, there are categorization and qualification
> issues. Where are the cut off lines in the categories and
> what are, if any, the minimum qualification for membership,
> constituency, names council. How determinative should
> factors like geography be? Before getting into any
> discussions on numbers, we should develop agreement on the
> diverse stakeholder categories or constituencies.
>
> 7. Manageable number of members. We are concerned that the
> concept of individual memberships could overwhelm the
> effectivess of the DNS. Lists and postings must clearly be
> open to exchange information and provide transparency.
> Individuals must have representative voices as well. But
> there must be a mechanism to select/develop appropriate
> representative or constituent groups for Individuals or as
> well suggest "general" stakeholder representatives.

Despite the discomfort and inefficiency that individual members can bring, I
see no way to bring on board the important constituency of individual users
without allowing anyone to become a member. Nor do I, and many others,
consider it desirable to do so. This will be a fundamental point with many
participants.

>
> 8. Missing items: a process for nominating three directors
> to ICANN and whether there are criteria for the nominees in
> terms of experience and expertise.
>
> 9. A number of comments are in the form of questions. We
> find them difficult to resolve as well. A number of these
> issues may be the critical issues for discussion during the
> Friday meeting.
>
> 10. Funding issues. Clearly funding must be addressed, but
> it will require some adjustment based on membership
> categories. Flat fee or different rates for different
> "types" of members? Certain issues related to separate
> incorporation will also impact funding due to potential
> greater liability implications of separate incorporation.

I don't see an easy solution to this. All funding systems are unfair.
Perhaps if they must be unfair, they should be unfair to those who can most
afford unfairness.

>
> More specific comments (underlined!) may be found within the
> document.
>
>
>
>
>
> December 6 - DWM further revised Draft of Proposal for DNSO
> Format
>
> NB: This is a DRAFT; it is intended to be a
> framework for discussion as proposed in the
> announcement of the DNSO process. Note that the
> terminology and Section references refer to the
> amended ICANN bylaws.
>
> APPLICATION TO BECOME THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORT ORGANIZATION,
> (pursuant
> to Art. VI, Section 3 (b) of the Bylaws of Internet
> Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (the "Corporation")
>
> Introduction
>
> This application is made by the undersigned to become the
> Domain Name Support Organization ("DNSO"), pursuant to
> Article VI, Section 3 (b) of the Bylaws of the Corporation.
> The undersigned hereby commit to fulfill the undertakings
> and policies set forth in this application. This application
> is organized under the headings set forth in Article VI,
> Section 3 (b) as follows:
>
> I. Membership criteria for the DNSO, and for the Names
> Council to be created pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 (a)
> (ii) of the Bylaws of the Corporation.
>
> II. Methods for developing substantive Internet policies
> and selecting Board nominees
>
> III. Open and transparent non-discriminatory processes
>
> IV. Policies to ensure international and diverse
> participation
>
> V. Policies for disclosure to the Corporation by members of
> or participants in the DNSO of conflicts of interest or
> other financial interests in matters within the scope of the
> DNSO
>
> VI. Methods for funding the DNSO and providing funding for
> the Corporation.
>
> Discussion
>
> I. MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA
>
> A. MEMBERSHIP IN THE DNSO:
>
> The qualifications for membership in the DNSO are set
> forth in Appendix A to this application, entitled
> "QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING
> ORGANIZATION".
>
> B. MEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSTITUENCIES:
>
> Each member of the DNSO shall be either a member of the
> At Large constituency or a member of one or more of the
> constituencies described below. Qualifications for
> membership in each of the constituencies are set forth in
> Appendix B to this application entitled "QUALIFICATIONS FOR
> MEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSTITUENCIES". DNSO members who are not
> members of one of the constituencies 1-5 below are
> automatically members of the At Large constituency. [ICC:
> Use of the term "At Large" may be too confusing with the
> identity of the At Large Board. Perhaps the concept of
> "general" membership would be better.]
>
>

If it's just the moniker that's changed, it's no problem. However, a
membership category that allows for individual members and gives them equal
access and fair voting rights will be crucial for widespread acceptance.

> The constituencies described herein are an initial set
> of constituencies. The DNSO and the Names Council will
> develop fair procedures for the creation, deletion, and
> merger of constituencies; and adjustment of the
> representation of constituencies on the Names Council.
>
>
> The constituencies are [ICC:(we presume that these are
> presented in no order of priority or importance - perhaps
> alphabetical would be best...)]:

Just as there is a technical function in the address supporting organization
and the protocols supporting organization, there is a technical function
within the domain name supporting organization, namely that of ensuring that
names resolve. Given that this is what makes the internet work, and that
this must be the critical function of ICANN and its supporting
organizations, I would say that registries are more important than all the
other constituencies.
>
> 1. Registries
>
> 2. Registrars
>
> 3. Infrastructure and connectivity providers
>
> 4. Businesses,[ICC: MSC: non-profit, and] other
> organizations
>
> 5. Organizations primarily concerned with the
> interests of
> trademark owners [ICC:(This constituency should also include
> large trademark holders which are primarily concerned with
> doing business, but for which trademark is a vitally
> important policy issue. While we are aware that these
> companies are represented by associations, they may have
> specific interests which require direct representation as
> well.)]
>
> 6. At Large [ICC:(general...)]
>
> A member of the DNSO may be a member in more than one
> constituency if it meets the qualifications for each
> constituency for which it applies and pays the membership
> fees for each such constituency. No member of any of the
> constituencies 1-5 may be a member of the At Large
> constituency.
>
> C. THE NAMES COUNCIL
>
> There shall be a Names Council consisting of 21
> members, elected from time to time by the members of the
> DNSO, following the procedures set forth below. The
> constituencies shall each have the right to be represented
> by the following numbers of members of the Names Council:
> [ICC: put them all back to "X"]

Sure the ICC wants to put them all back at X. This simply means that they
are unhappy with the number allotted to trademark holders. They must supply
some rationale behind this request.

> 1. Registries - X 6
>
> 2. Registrars - X 3
>
> 3. Infrastructure and connectivity providers - X 3
>
> 4. Business and other organizations -X 3
>
> 5. Organizations primarily concerned with the
> interests of trademark owners - X 3
>
> 6. At large general- X 3[ICC: to "general"]
>
>
> [ICC: The above categories represent a good ‘first cut” at
> an inclusive list of broadly representative constituencies.
> There must be flexibility to assure that potential
> constituencies that are not now included could be provided
> for later. While there should be no “magic number” there
> need to be voting restrictions or other assurances that no
> constituency can be disenfranchised by the collective action
> of a number of other constituencies acting in concert. It
> seems unlikely that any of the current constituencies would
> cease being relevant stake holders, but we might wish to
> consider whether special criteria and mechanisms need to be
> developed to address issues of new constituency addition or
> removal. Questions of voting and decision-making processes
> for the NC must also be addressed. Consensus? Majority?
> Super majority - for all issues?]

Decent questions. A supermajority voting scheme might be good for certain
issues, e.g. adding new constituencies.

>
> In order to assure geographical diversity among members
> of the Names Council, the members of the Names Council
> representing each constituency must each be from different
> geographical regions, unless there are more such
> representatives than there are regions. In this latter case
> no region shall have more than one more representative than
> any other region. The geographical regions shall be those
> set forth in Article V, Section 6 of the Corporation's
> bylaws. In particular, because the Registry constituency is
> represented by 6 members of the Names Council, and there are
> only 5 regions, not more than 2 representatives of the
> Registry constituency may be from the same geographical
> region.
>
> [ICC: One caution, while we should strive for this goal, but
> in light of the need to find qualified and available
> representatives in short order, some North American or
> European skewing may result. Everyone would be pleased if
> this were not a problem, but we must face some realities.
> These nominees will need to be known and established.
> Nominating a person solely on the basis of geographic origin
> is not in the DNSO’s best interest. Geographical diversity
> is a very important factor, but it can not be the only
> determinant.]

It is not the only determinant, that's why we have voting. The point of
geographical diversity is to ensure fairness, and to make sure that points
of view that might not occur to American/European interests are considered.
In one sense, geographical representation is a shorthand way of making sure
that the needs of developing countries are taken on board. I would say that
the language "known and established" is biased on its face. Known to whom?
Established by whom?

>
> D. APPLICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN CONSTITUENCIES 1-5
>
> After formation of the Names Council, applications for
> membership in the constituencies 1-5 shall be submitted to
> the Names Council. The Names Council shall have the right
> to approve or disapprove each application. [ICC: How does
> this work? After formation of the Names Council
> constituencies can be applied for. How is the Names Council
> constituted and how does the Names Council accept the
> Constituencies? Will the Names Councils provide objective
> criteria for the Constituencies? Isn’t this a problem of
> circular reasoning - the proverbial chicken and egg?]

Correct - this is circular.

> If
> an application is not approved, the applicant shall have the
> right to appeal to the Fair Hearing Panel (described below).
>
> E. ELECTION OF THE NAMES COUNCIL
>
> Within four weeks of acceptance by ICANN of this
> application the undersigned will self-select into
> constituencies, and elect members of the Names Council.
> [ICC: This seems like a problem waiting to happen. This
> concept of self-selection presumes that all participants
> within a constituency are in agreement as to who is in the
> constituency. Without greater detail in the parameters of
> the constituency this could be a problem. Businesses and
> Organizations for instance - does this mean all business
> including SOHO and mom and pop? Some among them may feel
> that their interests may be more akin to general users. And
> which organizations qualify? Unfortunately, there is no
> suggestion for a better solution. Perhaps this could be a
> brainstorming question for a future call?]

This is why we got back to self-selection. If someone doesn't like the
company they're keeping, they can move to a different constituency. In many
cases, especially for businesses, there is likely to be more than one
constituency for which they qualify.

>
> Members of each constituency shall nominate individuals
> to represent that constituency. There seems to be more
> circularity here. We seem incapable of escaping the need to
> have some initial group that is “touched by an angel” to
> start off the process. The self-organization of memberships
> remains unclear. Will there be outreach beyond the
> undersigned? Is there any upper numerical limit on DNSO
> membership? Nominations within each constituency may be made
> by any member of the constituency, provided, however, that
> each member of a constituency may make no more than one
> nomination for a Names Council member representing that
> constituency. An entity that is a member of more than one
> constituency may make one nomination for each constituency
> of which it is a member. Every nominee shall be identified
> as representing a particular geographical region. {ICC:
> Will geographic representation be maintained after
> nomination? Geographic diversity should be sought, but once
> appointed there should be no competition to ensconce or
> further any one geographical interest. Geographical
> diversity, rather ensures broad representation and prevents
> geographic discrimination. All of these issues must be
> reviewed in light of overall stability and end-user utility
> of the Internet.]

The ICC should realize that if there are special provisions for trademark
holders, there are going to be special provisions for other groups, and
indeed other overarching interests, such as geographical diversity. Does
this mean that we might end up with some dummies on the NC, elected simply
because they happen to come from a given area? Yes, but (a) there are
likely to be a lot of dummies anyway (look at the US congress), and (b) it
is ultimately to the region's detriment to put forward unqualified
candidates, and in their interest to find good ones.

>
> Elections for Names Council members shall be held once
> each year for vacant seats. The term of office for each
> member of the Names Council is three years, staggered so
> that each year one third of the Names Council members shall
> be elected.
>
> Each member of the DNSO may cast one vote for one
> nominee for membership in the Names Council from each of the
> constituencies [ICC: Clarification: the nominations are made
> by the constituencies, but elections are made by all? If
> not, it should be that way to assure that only nominees
> representative of the constituency are up for election...]

That is my understanding as well. This should be made clearer.

>
> The winning nominees from within each constituency
> shall be determined as follows:
>
> Within the group of nominees for each constituency, the
> nominees shall be grouped according to their geographical
> identification, and shall be ranked according to the votes
> received. Winners will be selected by the following
> criteria: Nominees identified with regions with the least
> number of current representatives for the constituency will
> be considered as a group. Within this group, the nominee
> with the most votes is selected, and is then considered a
> member of the group of current representatives. This
> procedure is repeated until there are no vacancies. Any
> ties shall be broken by random processes. [ICC: While there
> is a certain logic of fairness to this method, we have seen
> no limit as to qualification that requires specific
> knowledge or expertise. This should not be a layman’s
> Council. We have no qualms with geographical diversity as
> long as all participants demonstrate proper qualifications
> of technological or policy expertise. There will be
> substantive policy and technical problems raised within the
> near term that require experience and expertise to discuss,
> negotiate and reach closure on. ]

I think that the question of qualification is a can of worms. Let's not
forget that ICANN is not compelled to implement DNSO suggestions. It might
be better to simply vet DNSO suggestions for technical feasibility.

>
> [There are two choices on how to proceed if there is
> insufficient geographical representation: leave seats empty
> if the geographical distribution requirements are not met;
> or fill remaining empty seats with candidates with the most
> votes, even though the geographical requirements are not
> met.] [ICC: If this ends up being the process, then filling
> seats with candidates that are qualified and have received
> most votes is the way to go.]

Given the rules set out, I cannot see how geographical distribution
requirements can fail to be achieved, unless, as per the ICC, some
candidates are disqualified because the don't meet some qualification.

>
>
> [The following two paragraphs are an earlier
> description of a procedure.]
>
> Within each group of nominees for each constituency,
> nominees from the same geographical region as any incumbent
> member of the Names Council with an uncompleted term of
> membership representing the same constituency shall not be
> selected.
>
> All remaining nominees shall be grouped according to
> geographical region and, from each region, the eligible
> nominee (or, with respect to the Registries' constituency,
> the two eligible nominees for not more than one geographical
> region) with the most votes shall be elected to fill the
> available vacant seats on the Names Council.
>
> The term of office for members of the Names Council
> shall be three years. However, for the first election the
> first third of the nominees selected through the above
> process shall receive a three-year term, the second third
> shall receive a two-year term, and the remainder shall
> receive a one-year term. In the event of a resignation or
> other event that disturbs the even distribution of terms a
> similar fair process of adjusting the terms of newly elected
> members shall be used to regain an even distribution. If for
> any reason fewer than the seats allocated to a constituency
> are filled, the seats remain unfilled until the next
> election.
>
> II. METHODS FOR DEVELOPING SUBSTANTIVE INTERNET POLICIES AND
> SELECTING
> BOARD NOMINEES
>
> The Names Council is delegated the task of determining
> policies regarding TLDs, including operation, assignment and
> management of the domain name system and other related
> subjects, and, in accordance with Article VI, Section
> 3(a)(ii) of the Corporation's Bylaws, the Names Council
> shall make recommendations on such subjects to the
> Corporation's Board. The Names Council shall also have the
> power to select the nominees of the DNSO to the
> Corporation's Board.
>
> The Names Council shall seek input and review of its
> recommendations and Board nominations from each of the
> constituencies. It is the intent of the DNSO that,
> initially, there will be significant review by the
> constituencies; over time, the constituencies may agree to
> reduce the extent of review.
>
> Decisions by the Names Council on recommendations and
> selection of Board nominees shall be made by [majority]
> [ICC: two-thirds] vote.

Should be a simple majority. DNSO's decisions are not binding on ICANN --
ICANN could therefore consider the closeness of a vote.

>
> The DNSO, the Names Council and each of the
> constituencies will establish on-line methods of [ICC:
> collecting opinion, canvassing constituencies,] meeting and
> conducting ballots.

Agreed.

>
> The DNSO will develop procedures for its deliberations.
> Applicable IETF procedures will be examined as a possible
> model.
>
>
> III. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT NON-DISCRIMINATORY PROCESSES
>
> The processes of the Names Council (and the processes
> of each constituency) shall be governed by the same
> provisions for open and transparent non-discriminatory
> processes as those of the Board of the Corporation. A
> general mechanism for review of conflicts and grievances
> will be developed, and the Names Council shall appoint a
> Fair Hearing Panel which will, among other responsibilities
> delegated to it by the Names Council, hear appeals pursuant
> to Section I.D. of this application.
>
> Other such conflicts and grievances heard by this Fair
> Hearing Panel might include those regarding dominance or
> control of any single issue by means of membership in more
> than one constituency, other methods of unfair domination by
> special interests, matters concerning disputed membership in
> a constituency or the DNSO, disputes concerning membership
> dues, either in the DNSO or in a constituency, and so on.
> [ICC: Should there be objective criteria of proof required?
> Does recourse to a fair hearing panel require a minimum
> number of Names Council members? Is it reasonable to assume
> that an entire constituencies representatives must object?
> Is there the danger that a vocal/disruptive minority could
> abuse the Fair Hearing Panel? Does a Fair Hearing complaint
> suspend the activity until it’s resolution? Is there a de
> minimus showing that must be made to avail one’s self of the
> fair hearing panel? Are there policies controlling the
> appointment of the Fair Hearing Council - need for
> constituency representation. Must fair hearing council
> decisions be by consensus? unanimous? by majority? super
> majority? ]

Agreed. The *idea* of Fair Hearing Panels is a good one. But without some
guidelines attached, they are pretty much contentless motherhood and apple
pie.

>
>
>
> IV. POLICIES TO ENSURE INTERNATIONAL AND DIVERSE
> PARTICIPATION
>
> Because of the composition of the Names Council, there
> will automatically be international and diverse
> participation.
>
> V. POLICIES FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE CORPORATION BY MEMBERS OF
> OR
> PARTICIPANTS IN THE DNSO OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OTHER
> FINANCIAL
> INTERESTS IN MATTERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DNSO.
>
> These policies shall be the same as those for the Board
> of the Corporation.
>
> VI. METHODS FOR FUNDING THE DNSO AND PROVIDING FUNDING FOR
> THE CORPORATION
>
> The DNSO shall fund all costs of DNSO and Names Council
> membership and other meetings and communications, and all
> administrative and other costs associated with membership,
> from membership fees as established from time to time.
> Membership fees shall be set at a level sufficient to cover
> administrative and other costs associated with membership,
> (including the cost of verification of identity?).
>
> [ICC: Does part of the funding requirement depend on the
> corporate structure - part of ICANN vs. independently
> incorporated. There is no final decision-making authority
> in DNSO so costs of policy-related litigation should be born
> by ICANN, even though DNSO would also be named in the suit.
> As a separately incorporated entity, DNSO would have to bear
> a share of litigation costs. Also what if DNSO determines
> that a study or research would be needed? Shouldn’t ICANN
> bear that burden out of user fees rather than DNSO
> membership fees?]

Agreed.

>
> The constituencies 1-5 shall fund all other
> expenditures and contributions to ICANN.
> [ICC: Should there be consideration of SO funding from fees,
> like ICANN? This would be a further argument in favor of
> one ICANN corporation with separate SO subdivisions.]
>
> The Names Council shall draw up a budget for each
> calendar year which shall include receipts and all
> expenditures for which the DNSO is responsible. These
> include the contributions payable to ICANN? [ICC: This
> presumes ICANN funding will be independent of registration
> fee surcharges, or does this make the DNSO a pass-through
> entity which may have certain tax recognition importance,]
> the administrative costs for DNSO and other expenditures for
> membership meetings, conferences and hearings. The budget
> shall include a provision for reasonable reserves, not to
> exceed [xx]% of the previous year's budget.
>
> Members of the Names Council shall serve without
> compensation, provided, however, that members of the Names
> Council may be reimbursed by the DNSO for out of pocket
> expenses incurred in connection with their function if the
> expense is objectively necessary, and if the member seeking
> reimbursement can document the expense and show plausibly
> that the member could not perform the member's duties as a
> member of the Names Council without such reimbursement.
>
> Members of the DNSO shall provide funding as follows:
>
> A. Each member must pay annual dues in an amount
> equivalent to US$xx [$50-$100]. [ICC: Does this include
> individual/general/at large members?
> It’s unclear that this amount will generate sufficient fees.
> With some more detailed budget assumptions we may wish to
> consider a system whereby a slightly higher charge is paid
> by corporate and association members. We will need to
> ascertain what requirements exist. Staffing (part time?)
> Executive director? Administrative fees for listservs etc.
> Legal advice? Travel? How many non-virtual meetings?]

Valid points. I would just note that we should try to keep the DNSO as lean
as possible, and avoid cumbersome corporate structures where possible.

>
> Membership fees can only be changed by resolution of the
> entire membership by affirmative vote of at least 80% of the
> membership [ICC: eligible to vote]

It seems entirely unproductive to have non-voting membership.

[voting on the [ICC:
> resolution with a minimum quorum of 4/5 of those eligible to
> vote].

This may be too high a bar. It may be that 4/5 of members never vote. In
that case we get stuck.

The membership may not vote to reduce membership fees
> without a substantiated showing that expenses of the DNSO
> can be met by the reduced fees.

The membership ought to be able to vote whatever it wants. If the DNSO
becomes a behemoth that finances paradisical junkets for the NC members, the
membership ought to be able to force the DNSO to become leaner.

>
> B. Pursuant to the Corporation's Bylaws Art. VI,
> Sec.3(b)(vi) and Art XI, Sec.4(b), fees and charges imposed
> by the Corporation shall be passed along by the DNSO [ICC:
> to the parties receiving the services or benefits provided
> by the Corporation ??? Please clarify.] Any other amounts in
> the DNSO budget that are not covered by the membership fees
> referred to in A. above shall be paid by each constituency
> in an amount proportional to its number of representative
> members on the Names Council.
>
> C. Payments required to be made can only be changed by
> an affirmative vote of at least 80% of the Names Council,
> and only after the Names Council has consulted with all the
> constituencies regarding the change. [The change must be
> approved by the ICANN Board.][ICC: How does this work? Does
> the Names Council suggest to ICANN that there be different
> payments? ]
>
> D. Each year's budget must be submitted by the Names
> Council to each of the constituencies for approval. If the
> constituencies do not unanimously approve the budget, it
> shall be submitted to the entire DNSO membership for
> approval. Approval by the DNSO membership shall be decided
> by a simple majority vote of [the members voting] [the
> members voting][ICC: all eligible voters]. If the membership
> does not approve the budget, the budget shall be submitted
> to the Board of the Corporation [ICC: (DNSO??? - is there a
> process for Board Election - are we referring to the Names
> Council?)] which shall have the power to determine the
> budget.
>
> E. Any surplus from membership fees in a fiscal year
> shall be carried forward [ICC: and applied to] the next
> year's budget.
>
> F. The Names Council shall appoint, by vote of at least
> 50% of the
> Council, one of its members to be the Treasurer of the DNSO,
> who shall have administrative control over receipts and
> expenditures. If the
> Treasurer finds that receipts or expenditures are
> significantly different from the budgeted amounts, the
> Treasurer shall propose an amended budget, which shall be
> subject to adoption and approval in the same manner as the
> original budget.
>
>
> APPENDIX A
>
> QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING
> ORGANIZATION (pursuant to Art. VI, Section 2 of the Bylaws
> of
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (the
> "Corporation"))
>
> The following are the qualifications for participation by
> any entity
> or organization for membership in the Domain Name Supporting
> Organization ("DNSO"), as described in Article VI, Section 2
> of the
> Bylaws of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers (the
> "Corporation"):
>
> Any entity or individual person with a legitimate
> interest in the
> Internet is eligible to be a member of the DNSO.
> [ICC: This seems to be a very vague and subjective
> definition. Who decides what is a legitimate interest? It
> will be read to mean all people/organizations are included
> if they have a subjective belief that they have a legitimate
> interest.]

How about -- anyone who wants to. I see no reason, absent a substantial and
pressing reason, to limit membership.

>
>
>
> APPENDIX B
>
> QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSTITUENCIES
>
> The following are the qualifications for participation
> by any entity or organization for membership in the
> constituencies, as described in Article IB of this
> application:
>
> 1) Any entity or organization that is either
>
> a) Registry: A name registry (defined as an entity with
> write authority to a zone referenced by a TLD),
>
> b) Registrar: or a registrar of generic/global or country-
> code top-level
> domains ("TLDs") (defined as an entity with a direct
> contractual relationship with a registry to register names
> within a TLD zone),
>
> c) or Infrastructure and Connectivity Provider: a network
> operator or service provider (defined as a legal person
> operating a name server for clients and offering Internet
> connectivity to third parties),
>
> d) Business (legal persons properly incorporated as for-
> profit enterprises) and other organizations Or other
> business or organizations(defined as any legally constituted
> organization primarily engaged in the representation or
> promotion of businesses with a legitimate interest in Domain
> Name issues),
>
>
> e) Trademark or an organization representing trademark
> interests, defined as entities primarily concerned with
> trademarks or defending business against
> counterfeiting.[ICC: (again, what of businesses that are
> substantial trademark holders?) ]

Membership in more than one constituency is permitted. Join both.

>
> 2) Associations of organizations qualified to participate in
> the constituencies may also become members, as may
> associations of associations (umbrella associations) whose
> members meet the conditions for participation in the
> constituencies. Associations and umbrella associations
> must, however, be legally recognized entities with
> substantial numbers [ICC:(vague delineating factor)] of
> members. The Names Council will decide any questionable
> cases.
>
> [ICC: Are there any qualifications for at large or general
> members? Can any individual join?]

YES

>