<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Please read the first sentence as follows:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><div class="gmail_default">Are we talking about designating AC/SO chairs / Representatives as ICANN members to participate in decisions? If the idea is this, then it becomes closer to the idea of creating a Cross Community Structure. </div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy" target="_blank">Sivasubramanian M</a></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Sivasubramanian M <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Dear Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><div class="gmail_default">Are we talking about designating AC / SO chairs or Members accorded the status of ICANN members to participate in decisions? If the idea is this, then it becomes closer to the idea of creating a Cross Community Structure. </div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default">If any other types of "Membership" is discussed, I will start with a few questions, with openness, to go along with you to first visualize how a membership based system could be designed and then examine it thoroughly for possible flaws:</div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">1. Membership in ICANN or Membership in Ry Stakeholder Group, Membership in ALAC, Membership in GAC?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">2. Free Membership / Paid Membership ? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">3. Open for all / Criteria Based Membership ?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">4. If fee based, would it be membership based on a unified fee or Tiered Membership ranging from a dollar to a million per membership? If Tiered, would it have equal privileges across the tiers (which is not practical) ?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">5. If each constituency is to have its own Membership rules, and if the Ry Stakeholder group is a $10000 membership and At Large is a hundred dollar or criteria based membership, does At Large get to be seated equally?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Sivasubramanian M</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy" target="_blank">Sivasubramanian M</a></div></div></div></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Siva,<div><br></div><div>What's your solution? </div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>The only way to avoid everything in your email is to stay in bed.</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Greg Shatan</div></font></span></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#333333">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#333333"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#333333">Sivasubramanain M</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy" target="_blank">Sivasubramanian M</a></div></div></div></font></span><div><div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Jordan,<br>
<br>
thanks for your looking into this in further detail.<br>
My comment below:<br>
<span><br>
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
><br>
> It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs<br>
> effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It<br>
> would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join<br>
> stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total<br>
> votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have<br>
> a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say<br>
> as an Internet user.<br>
<br>
</span>Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of<br>
individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today<br>
either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into<br>
a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes<br>
according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership<br>
organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players<br>
- the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the<br>
public interest.<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD<br>
<a href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html" target="_blank">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a><br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>