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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Apr 13 23:09:28 UTC 2015


I second Jordan's email.  This confusion may have arisen due to memos
prepared by our outside counsel.  We asked counsel to review a number of
generically available options for us, whether or not these had surfaced in
the work of the CCWG.  This was an entirely logical request, since the
legal experts may be aware of some options that did not come up in our
work.  It would have been odd to ask that they provide no new material,
regardless of their knowledge of corporate governance and structure; after
all, that is part of the expertise for which they have been retained.  And
in fact, their fresh views and ideas have already contributed significantly
to our work.

In this instance, the approach of "tell me our options" may have been
misinterpreted and misconstrued, primarily by those not familiar with all
of the CCWG's work.  This may be understandable, but it is also quite
unfortunate, since it wastes one of our most precious commodities -- time.

I hope that Jordan's message reaches those who believe that individual
membership is under consideration, and that the realize they are in error.
If they are not in reach of this email list, but participants are in reach
of these people, it would be helpful if they are corrected on the lists or
in the conversations where this mistaken "FUD" is being circulated.  To
paraphrase Smokey the Bear (apologies for the US-centric reference), "Only
You Can Stop FUD Fires."

Greg Shatan
Legal Subteam

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>

> 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.
> Cheers
> Jordan
> Jordan Carter
> Rapporteur, WP1
> --
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150413/35aa8a25/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list