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

[Roelof Meijer]

That’s a clear message, Jordan, and it should do the job. Let’s not overreact. I for one have not come across this misconception or misinterpretation. There are sufficient of us around to react if we do come across it. I –and may others that are aware of the state of affairs- will be participating in the GCCS in The Hague and will make sure to correct if necessary

Best,

Roelof

From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: dinsdag 14 april 2015 01:09
To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Clarification on 'membership' - not individual

All:

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<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.

Cheers
Jordan


Jordan Carter
Rapporteur, WP1



--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | 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>
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/20150414/35b44454/attachment.html>