To repeat, this argument is a two-edged sword: You are basically
saying that anyone who is interested in joining in this constituency
can be a member for a few dollars -- in many cases, for free.
Therefore, the membership is essentially open. Therefore there
really are no lines, and the membership criteria are almost precisely
the same as the GA. Therefore this is simply a duplicate of the GA,
a way for the GA members who are interested to get seats on the NC.
ICANN already sees right through that, I guarantee you.
> (Yes, I know that that would really feel like a rotten thing when somebody
> has taken the name that I had and really want to use.)
>
> > "Any real individual with an interest in Domain Names may
> > participate. Proof of existence may be required."
>
> I'd like that. But I'm not sure we could squeeze that past the ICANN
> board, since they seem to want to have some boundaries.
Yes, but they want real boundaries, not a thinly disguised general
membership.
> > One of the problems I see with any form of IDNO is that it is a
> > *intrinsically* in conflict with the notion of a General Assembly.
>
> I think what we will get to here is a revival of our now age-old dispute
> about the relative powers of the ICANN board versus the powers of the SOs.
>
> The NC has certain powers and the GA has certain powers. One thing that I
> hope we can agree on is that those powers only partially overlap. It's in
> those areas of non-overlap that make membership in both the NC and the GA
> each important, and different.
Hmm just a couple of days ago you were saying that the GA was powerless.
> So it is important for the IDNO to be a constituency.
It is important for individuals to have effective access. Being a
constituency is merely a mechanism to that end. I am not wedded to
being a constituency -- a GA with 3 seats on the NC would be fine.
Of course, the bylaws would have to be changed, but not too much.
[...]
> >From what I've seen the current thinking on membership is to let the IDNO
> be a place where individuals can go *unless* they opt to be in another
> constituency.
Sigh.
I originally proposed, in Barcelona, that there would be an
"At-Large" *constituency*, a first-class constituency with powers the
same as any other constituency, with completely open membership, and
that it would be unique in that no member of another constituency
could be a member of the At-Large Constituency.
The notion of a non-voting General Assembly came through the Paris
Draft, and blew away the At Large Constituency.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain