Feb. 28, 1999 10:00 am

Participants: Siegfried Langenbach, Tadao Takahashi, Daniel Kaplan, Diane Cabell, Pavan Duggal, Izumi Aizu, Kachana Kanchuanasut, Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, Jonathan Zittrain

also present: Kimberley Isbell, Wendy Seltzer, Ben Edelman

Procedural discussion for Tuesday’s open meeting. Recognition that only part of the committee was present.

Substance:

Type of membership: Who is a member?

Brief discussion of how to judge whether a membership system has been successful: How many register as members, how representative the membership is of Internet users.

Who is a member?

The committee began with the three models developed by the RCS study and posted to the lists:

Consensus reached against the organization-only model, as representing individuals was seen to be an important element of the at-large membership. Discussion turned to the pros and cons of individual versus combined individual and organizational membership.

KK described three modes of combining individuals and associations:

Individual-only model (only individuals can vote, though organizations may be non-voting members). Pro: largest possible population of members, most democratic, but DK raised concern about including organizations that use the Net, saying organizational interests are not necessarily represented by members or employees. A corporation is a separate corporate person, so asking its members to vote for it confuses their roles

Strong feeling against the individual-only model (DK, SL, IA)

Joint individual and organization membership:

Pro: DK: Encourage the participation of DN and IP holders; the vast majority of those will be organizations, so give them a place.

DC: The easy creation of front corporations could permit capture

Associations: a subset of organizations or a different type of entity?

No consensus on whether to allow associations (defined by DC as groups of people without a corporate charter) as members

DC - don’t want to have to worry about defining association

IA - some countries require regulation of association. particiularly in Asia, harder to obtain than non-profit status

split on whether associations should be a) included or b) given a vote

JZ cites DNRC as a group that should "have a seat at the table"

IA - they should be involved

DK - they should be members, if you don’t give them a vote, it doesn’t matter (distinguish between formal and informal organizations)

DC - they can join as individuals

DK - IETF problem; if associations join as individuals, it’s not transparent whose interests they’re representing

SL - people in developing countries (non-English speakers) might find it easier to participate through associations

How the at-large membership relates to the other memberships, specifically DNSO

DC suggested: at-large membership should be the place for people who don’t qualify for membership in an SO. Suggestion that at-large membership’s principal purpose is to represent the users of the Internet, those who are not represented in SOs. JZ suggests that the SOs provide technical expertise, while at-large members provide the user perspective.

Brief discussion of interaction of at-large membership with the SOs, specifically the DNSO. Left unconcluded because MAC doesn’t have jurisdiction over the SOs.

IA - some organizations intimately connected with Internet’s functions may want more representation than SOs give, so perhaps they should be represented in at-large membership as well.

Concern that at-large was taking a split role, for those not involved enough to be in an SO, and those so intimately involved to want more than SO membership.

Longer discussion of double voting - concern about counting the vote of an individual and the same vote as a corporate representative. Kent Crispin’s suggestion that ICAN require a physical representative of the organization, who cannot then vote as an individual, to solve the double-counting problem.

Consensus for all except PD that corporations can be members, no consensus on whether they can vote. DK - at-large elects half the board, limiting to motivated individuals is serious restriction. We want Caterpillar to be able to join as Caterpillar.

Principles of the at-large membership:

IA: static or changing over time?

At large is a place for those who cannot be or are not represented in SOs

JZ: SOs are experts, users are more general - that’s what at-large is for.

At-large membership is a place where people who are not represented in the SOs have a voice

Discussion of points to consider the following day.