[WP1] Comment on various discussion of membership model

[Greg Shatan]

Paul,

I think this is a little different than past thoughts on membership.  What
is being considered here is that current ICANN entities (e.g.,
SO/AC/SG/C/RALO organizations) would themselves be the members.  This has
its issues, but it probably avoids most if not all the issues you cite.
Further, I don't think anyone is looking to change the current open
participatory model.

Best regards,

Greg Shatan

Apologies for brevity.

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Paul Twomey <paul.twomey at argopacific.com>
wrote:

>  Hi Mathieu, Thomas and Jordan
>
> I have been following the great work of the CCWG from outside for some
> time, but only recently joined as a participant.
>
> I wonder if I may raise a concern, that I am not sure how best to insert
> into the various working group and other lists.   I see in discussion
> papers from the lawyers and in various comments on the lists, the
> consideration of ICANN adopting a membership model.   Now I realise that
> this is only one option and I support the approach of developing out models
> for the community to consider.  I am sorry to be coming to this issue later
> than others, and perhaps you will be able to parse my concern to the right
> audience.
>
> I wanted to raise my grave concerns about the potential unintended
> consequences of a membership model for ICANN.   Having reviewed non-profit
> legal structures throughout much of the world, I realise that the
> membership model is common, particularly in parts of Europe.  But it is not
> a universally accepted model.
>
> For an international organisation serving a changing Internet community,
> there is a big difference between a "participatory" model and a
> "membership" model.   In 1997-99 we discussed these issues very carefully,
> and settled on an open-ended participatory model to ensure the best mix of
> "all can feel free to attend and participate" with an incentive, similar to
> the IETF, to reward meritocratic participation.   This also had the very
> important benefit of not building anti-trust risk by having participation
> limited only to a set of members who may at some time show cartel like
> behaviour.   And as the litigation with Verisign from 2003-05 showed,
> anti-trust and other litigation can be a VERY significant risk to ICANN (or
> any other entity with limited resources).   It does not matter what
> jurisdiction, judges can bring down harsh damages for anti-trust action.
> Now throughout the Verisign litigation, the courts regularly came down on
> the side of ICANN, and its open participation model was an important factor
> in their evaluation of ICANN's decisions.
>
> Further, many may not recall, but the one time ICANN considered a form of
> more 'class based membership' - the election for board members based on
> anyone who had a domain name - we saw important differences.   While some
> regions had voters only in the hundreds ( a reflection of the activists who
> cared then), one region suddenly went through a very different dynamic.   A
> candidate from one economy was getting tens of thousands of votes, then
> suddenly a rival economy had a candidate who attracted over 100,000 votes
> and then a third rival economy put forward a candidate and was garnering
> tens of thousands of votes a day, before the deadline cut this competition
> off.   Now, they were all excellent candidates, but the point is that mere
> inter-country rivalry resulted in very significant mobilisation of
> empowered voters who were not necessarily motivated by the mission and
> values of ICANN - it appeared more a form of nationalist competition.
>
> I can foresee numerous scenarios where if ICANN were to move to a
> membership model that such non-mission related incentives could end up with
> large numbers of members being recruited.  Indeed, a membership model may
> also put in place perverse incentives for contracted or other affected
> parties (companies, associations, governments, ethnic groupings) to
> mobilise large numbers of members.  *Remember, members do not have to be
> participants*.  But by the fact of having membership they get a more or
> equal say.    And clever players could game restrictions within various
> SOs/ACs to build coalitions of members in each.
>
> I have seen this sort of gaming occur in several large important
> membership organisations.   Indeed, in one in Australia, a
> roadside-assistance organization, the membership dynamics eventually
> developed into two parties which were defacto proxies for the country's
> main political parties - and the two sides spent years in the courts trying
> to outdo each other.
>
> I apologise if this issue has already been discussed fully by the CCWG in
> meetings.   I just wanted to put into the mix concerns about unintended
> consequences.
>
> Best
>
> Paul
>
>
> --
> Dr Paul Twomey
> Managing Director
> Argo P at cific
>
> US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
> Aust M: +61 416 238 501
> www.argopacific.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150410/1532455e/attachment-0001.html>