[CCWG-ACCT] Personal thoughts on membership

[Greg Shatan]

Let's recall what the NTIA said in its press release:

*To support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking
> and governance*, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today announces
> its intent to *transition key Internet domain name functions to the
> global multistakeholder community*.  As the first step, NTIA is asking
> the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene
> global stakeholders to *develop a proposal to transition the current role
> played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system*
> (DNS).


(emphasis added)

As I read this, the role of the NTIA, which expressly includes its role as
the "steward of the DNS," is being transitioned to the "global
multistakeholder community." (Some may think that means ICANN, Inc.; I
disagree and I think most of us do.)  As I read Bruce, he seems to have
significant concerns about whether the ICANN community is sufficiently
representative of the "global multistakeholder community" to take on that
job.

If we're not, then that would seem to be reason to delay the transition
until we are.

However, I tend to disagree with Bruce's view of the ICANN community.
While there is always room for improvement, I tend to share Phil's view and
Jordan's view in this regard, both with regard to our readiness and Bruce's
view of the yardstick for readiness.  I'm not sure what statistical
significance is proposed, but if it is based on direct representation and
participation seems like an unreachably high bar, and something that has
never been a focus of ICANN. I also don't think it takes into account how
stakeholder organizations work.

For instance, I don't foresee the IPC having 10,000 members in the
foreseeable future.  However, I would note that the IPC is in significant
part an organization of organizations,, and through organizational members,
we represent over 50,000 intellectual property owners around the world.
Our direct membership is about half North America-based (though that
includes global organizations headquartered in the US), but that ratio is
improving, and the majority of our new members are coming from outside the
North American/Western European area.  So I would say that the
characterization of "predominately US based intellectual property
interests" is at best outmoded.

I expect that other commercial and noncommercial community groups can
demonstrate similarly how their reach exceeds the number of noses counted
at an ICANN meeting, both in terms of indirect participation and in terms
of mission.

The NTIA did not just decide that ICANN was ready.  It decided that the
global multistakeholder community -- the target of their transition -- was
ready.  We should honor that decision.

Greg

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nigel,
>
> Please see my email today in response to you on another thread regarding
> the three duties that make up the fiduciary duties of a non-profit Board
> member.  The "Duty of Obedience" does obligate the Board to "obey" the
> mission, purpose and values of ICANN as set forth in the Articles and
> Bylaws (including those cited above), and to its status as a public benefit
> corporation.  This is a fiduciary duty, and while it must be balanced by
> the Board members against the fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, it
> cannot be denigrated to the point where it is breached.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I agree with this exactly as phrased by Bruce.
>>
>> ICANN's Directors owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation. This is
>> undeniable.
>>
>> ICANN (the corporation) is established to lessen the burden of government
>> and promote the global public interest in the operational stability of the
>> Internet (Art 3).
>>
>> ICANN operates for the benefit of the Internet Community as a whole (Art
>> 4).
>>
>> Whilst ICANN certainly owes a duty or obligation of some form "to the
>> Internet community as a whole" (as per Art 4, above), I am not convinced
>> that it is that of a fiduciary, or even the lesser standard of the tort
>> duty of care: see as a starting point:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary
>>
>> Please convince me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ICANN owes a fiduciary duty to the Internet community as a whole.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151004/8423559e/attachment.html>