[CCWG-ACCT] [] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Thu Jan 22 01:17:21 UTC 2015 

Hi,

Yes there are difficulties in a component becoming a controlling
entity.  But I think there were those who thought it was possible.  So
probably worth checking out by those working on the model.  I understand
the right lawyer can build almost anything.

What examples of working models (existing wheels of the right type) for
ICANN membership would you point to as worth exploring?

It was a good meeting.  Happy I could be there.

avri

On 21-Jan-15 04:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> How can any internal structure of a company become "member" of said
> company?
>
> And, as far as the Country Codes are concerned it can not work, as not
> all are members, and some might leave, depending on policy development.
>
> There are similar organizations that have solved that problem, so I
> would look at those, before reinventing the wheel.
>
> el
>
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>
> On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:51, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Denic has a reasonable basis for membership.
>>
>> I cannot understand what reasonable form that membership would take
>> for ICANN.  And as Robin's notes shows, it may not be necessary to
>> achieve our goals.
>>
>> We talked about SOAC [or their chairs], for example,  are they all
>> equal in represenation and voting weight, or do we need to negotiate
>> some other form of balance?  And what if new SOAC were to be created
>> by the Board? What about the GAC, can a government entitiy join a
>> California membership corporation? And if not based on SOAC, then
>> what.  Would it cost to join, and would that appropriate? If it did
>> cost would that leave civil sociey behind?  If it thee was not some
>> sort of control would one sector or region predominate?  Would we
>> need to force a balance.  Could governments join? How would someone
>> maintain membership - is it permanent or does it take a renewal
>> process. 
>>  
>> And those are just the first questions.  Membership sounds like an
>> easy solution but the complexities are mind boggling.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 21-Jan-15 08:40, Dr Eberhard WLisse wrote:
>>> Just for the record Nominet barely avoided capture, and by
>>> borderline means...
>>>
>>> DENIC has some form of membership (industry).
>>>
>>> el
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com
>>> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Team:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to associate myself with Greg’s comments (below).  We
>>>> cannot rule out proposed structures due to their novelty, and
>>>> anticipated weaknesses are simply indicators that we need to
>>>> continue working to improve/flesh out the idea(s).
>>>>
>>>> In fact, I don’t believe is all that unknown in our industry.  Two
>>>> large ccTLDs (UK and CA) have some recognized form of membership
>>>> that participates in governance and policy development in the TLD.
>>>>  And I am of the opinion that a well-designed membership structure
>>>> could be an excellent safeguard against capture of ICANN by a
>>>> majority of the Board, or a single SO/AC.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to all for a productive meeting in Frankfurt, look forward
>>>> to future discussions, and see you in Singapore.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks—
>>>>
>>>> J.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38
>>>> To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>>
>>>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community
>>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
>>>>
>>>> Siva,
>>>>
>>>> What's your solution?  
>>>>
>>>> And how do you think we will be able to avoid unknown territory?  I
>>>> think we're going into some kind of unknown territory no matter
>>>> what, since "known territory" is unsatisfactory (or else we
>>>> wouldn't be here).
>>>>
>>>> And why do you assume that potential participants will be shut
>>>> out?  Any system, poorly designed, will have problems.  So let's
>>>> try to design this well, so it doesn't shut out potential
>>>> participants.  Any grouping of people or entities is in some ways
>>>> "prone to be captured."  But rather than shoot down the membership
>>>> concept in a knee-jerk fashion, try to work toward resolution, or
>>>> at least try to create some useful "stress tests."  I'm not saying
>>>> that a membership organization is the right solution, the only
>>>> solution, or even an available solution.  Fighting through the
>>>> issues won't be quick or pretty, and it may be the end-result
>>>> doesn't work.  But it's too soon to know.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to avoid everything in your email is to stay in bed.
>>>>
>>>> Greg Shatan
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M
>>>> <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     I am equally concerned.  The idea of moving to a membership
>>>>     based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership
>>>>     based system shuts out a section of potential participants due
>>>>     to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for
>>>>     membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would
>>>>     be imbalances and unknown dangers.
>>>>
>>>>     Sivasubramanain M
>>>>
>>>>     Sivasubramanian M
>>>>     <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>>>>
>>>>     On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>>>     <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Dear Jordan,
>>>>
>>>>         thanks for your looking into this in further detail.
>>>>         My comment below:
>>>>
>>>>         On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
>>>>         >
>>>>         > It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO
>>>>         and AC chairs
>>>>         > effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own
>>>>         membership system). It
>>>>         > would be harder to allow individuals with some standing
>>>>         to join
>>>>         > stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate
>>>>         shares of total
>>>>         > votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible
>>>>         but mad to have
>>>>         > a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had
>>>>         the same say
>>>>         > as an Internet user.
>>>>
>>>>         Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of
>>>>         individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not
>>>>         work today
>>>>         either. However, I would also really urge caution in
>>>>         turning ICANN into
>>>>         a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of
>>>>         total votes
>>>>         according to size of organisational members. I have seen
>>>>         membership
>>>>         organisations being captured by large players buying out
>>>>         smaller players
>>>>         - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and
>>>>         *not* the
>>>>         public interest.
>>>>         Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>         Olivier
>>>>
>>>>         --
>>>>         Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>>>>         http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> <mailto: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/20150121/8d17c091/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list