[WP1] Comment on various discussion of membership model

Fri Apr 10 17:22:30 UTC 2015

Thanks Greg and Steve

I had looked at some of the lawyer responses, but I will return to the 
docs and look again.

Paul

On 4/11/15 3:03 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> Paul — Greg’s answer is what I was thinking, too.
> When you get a chance, look at the lawyer docs regarding Member and 
> Designator models.
>
> Best,
> Steve
> —
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and 
> http://blog.netchoice.org <http://blog.netchoice.org/>
> +1.703.615.6206
>
>
>
> From: Greg Shatan
> Date: Friday, April 10, 2015 at 12:51 PM
> To: Paul Twomey
> Cc: "wp2 at icann.org <mailto:wp2 at icann.org>", "wp1 at icann.org 
> <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>"
> Subject: Re: [WP1] Comment on various discussion of membership model
>
> 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 <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>
> *ICANN-related:/gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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  <tel:%2B1%20310%20279%202366>
>     Aust M:+61 416 238 501  <tel:%2B61%20416%20238%20501>www.argopacific.com  <http://www.argopacific.com>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     WP1 mailing list
>     WP1 at icann.org <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>

-- 
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P at cific

US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501

www.argopacific.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150411/38cb51ed/attachment-0001.html>