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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Apr 13 23:15:12 UTC 2015


James,

Unfortunately, members are members, and they are substantively different
from delegates or designators.

Sometimes, non-profits call people "members" who really aren't (e.g., I am
not really a statutory "member" of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, even
though I have a membership card in my wallet).  This is typically allowed
by statute.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work the other way around -- there's
nothing else to call members, as far as I know.

So, I think we just need to be clear that we are contemplating nothing more
than taking the current organizations that participate in ICANN governance,
and making them into the "members."  It should be thought of as a
conversion of the current structure (merely rearranging the current
elements) in this instance.  New classes of actors are not being created.

Greg

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:05 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
wrote:

>  Jordan:
>
>  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,
>
>  J.
> ____________
> James Bladel
> GoDaddy
>
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 15:15, Jordan Carter <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.
>
>  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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150413/8e5fcaef/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list