If you read our membership criteria we allow as a member any individual
who controls a domain name to a degree that it essentially constitutes
ownership, even if that domain name happens to be that of a corporation.
Even IBM.com can get one individual into the IDNO, assuming that IBM could
find a single individual who has real and full control of the domain name.
(As I mention later, it is very unlikely that IBM or other large
corporations could come up with such a person.)
> We have a number of people on this list who have suggested that
> nothing more than being the admin/tech/zone contact for a domain
> should be required . . . because their domains are all held in the
> names of corporate entities. Golly, you *have* been reading the list,
> right?
I wrote the first cut at the membership requirements. And yes, being in
the contact record is pretty strong material to support a membership.
> >We have published a very rough first cut at membership requirements --
> >amounting essentially to control of a domain name.
> Awfully tenuous. Try whois on ibm.com, for instance. Guess what:
> the admin contact is a real person.
And as we have discussed, we would admit that real person if that person
could demonstrate enough evidence to indicate that he/she really control
the domain name to a sufficient degree such that one could believe that it
is essentially "ownerership". I have a suspicion, however, that the IBM
person wouldn't be able to demonstrate adequate discretionary power to
meet that test.
> >I believe my own control of cavebear.com and other domains makes me
> >elegible as well.
> Assuming that "Cavebear" is your nom de commerce, that's of course
> true. If course, you might be a bit put out to show a paper trail
> that validates that assumption, but I'm not about to challenge it (for
> reasons made clear below).
It is exactly to avoid such useless nit picking that we have picked the
notion of control amounting to ownership rather than trying to find some
formal property interest.
> As I have said before, if the REGISTRANT of the domain is not an
> individual, then we've established a criterion for membership that
> includes many of the Fortune 1000 companies. Which in turn means that
> there are other, less patent, selection criteria at work.
And we are happy to admit those individuals from Fortune 1000 companies.
But they have to be an individual in the company who has discretionary
power that amounts to ownership. I suggest that in a corporate structure
that would only be very senior executives. And given the nature of
today's corporations and the value of a company's domain name, they'd
possibly have to demonstrate that they have sufficient votes on the board
to dispose of such a major corporate asset.
We will probably use the power to dispose of the domain name as an
significant indicator of whether one has discretionary power amounting to
ownership.
To move that notion to your example of the ship, strong evidence of who is
the "owner" would be whether the candidate has the unquestioned right to
destroy the ship for any reason (or no reason) that he/she might have.
As you can see, that rough guideline will filter out most candidates from
large corporations.
If the filter leaks, no real harm is done, especially when a determined
person can acquire an undisputed domain name for only a few bucks.
> I am the registrant. I am also the Admin and billing contact. But I
> don't consider that relevant.
We would consider it relevant but not necessarily determinative. If you
control the domain name enough so that it looks and smells like what a man
on the street calls ownership, then you have a valid base for membership.
If not, then you don't.
And a single domain name can support at most one membership. So if you
get into a disagreement then the two of you can fight it out between
yourselves.
> And you guys have the nerve to suggest that you're a legitimate voice
> of individual domain name holders? This is some kind of joke!
No. It is serious. And we do represent the individual domain name
owners. And we are growing.
You are welcome to help.
> I've been pushing away the players in the domain name
> war who believe that I should organize an individuals' constituency as
> a counterweight to IDNO.
Please organize them. We need all the voices for individuals we can get.
However, remember, an entity that claims to represent individuals only if
they are members of organizations is something that I will work against.
> And then you guys decided to go ahead and purge me :-)
I no not whether that statement is true or not.
> <As always, please disregard the silly trailer, which I did not write
> and which I cannot disable while using this client>
I understand, but you may want to pass onto whoever at your firm is in
fact in control that such a notice is ineffectual and only serves to
polorize.
For example, no automated list handler should forward such an e-mail.
--karl--
-- This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz. For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/