<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Mathieu, Thomas and Jordan<br>
<br>
I have been following the great work of the CCWG from outside for
some time, but only recently joined as a participant. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <i>Remember, members do not have to be participants</i>.
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr Paul Twomey
Managing Director
Argo P@cific
US Cell: +1 310 279 2366
Aust M: +61 416 238 501
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.argopacific.com">www.argopacific.com</a></pre>
</body>
</html>