[CCWG-ACCT] Clarification on 'membership' - not individual

James M. Bladel jbladel at godaddy.com
Mon Apr 13 23:05:17 UTC 2015


Good clarification, but it is concerning that this (mis)conception is being heard outside the ccwg. Could we do a better job in terms of messaging?  Are there legally and functionally equivalent terms ("delegate") that are less prone to creating confusion?

Thank you,

James Bladel

On Apr 13, 2015, at 15:15, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:

dear all

I just wanted to make a comment as rapporteur for the community empowerment working party.

There is some discussion outside our ccwg and outside our working party that the discussion of membership as an option to empower the community could lead to an Individualised membership system, where interested members of the public would join ICANN.

That is not right.

That is not what is on the table.

Membership might be a vehicle to give ICANN's multi stakeholder community more power within ICANN. It would do that through structures that relate to ICANN as it is today, a collection of constituencies organised through SOs and ACs.

The organisation will remain a bottom up, multistakeholder one. The work through SOs and ACs will continue.

Nobody has proposed sweeping this away and replacing it with individual membership, recruitment drives, and so on.

Trust this helps.


Jordan Carter
Rapporteur, WP1

Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150413/481cab7e/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list