[CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts

[Seun Ojedeji]

Members approach could indeed help and is something worth further thinking
through. One thing I like to clarify though is that proposing SO/AC leaders
to actually serve as ICANN members could indirectly increase the political
attention on those positions which will also call for accountability from
those leaders, it may also be good to consider how such structure scale for
any future memberships (creation of new SO/AC?). I guess my main point is
that membership that is not exercised by the directly concerned (like we
have in RIRs) would still be of concern.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Jan 2015 16:00, "Jordan Carter" <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I wanted to explain a bit more why I thought implementing a membership
> system might be an addition to accountability.
>
> The main point is in building an ICANN that is less centralised.
>
> At the moment, in respect of policymaking, the ICANN bylaws set out
> various requirements. E.g. my understanding is that the ICANN Board can't
> make generally policy for ccTLDs except in endorsing the outcome of a PDP
> from the ccNSO (I caveat it with the fact I haven't researched the bylaws).
>
> There are other areas of ICANN work where there isn't external control of
> the board. E.g. the budget-setting process, governing scope, and so on.
>
> A lightweight membership structure that gave representatives from the SOs
> and ACs (and maybe more widely, though at this point I don't see the
> argument for that) a particular role at a particular general meeting (e.g.
> approving the budget, approving new members, ratifying changes to the
> bylaws) would provide new accountability in a fairly straightforward
> manner.
>
> Such an approach doesn't change the fact the ICANN Board governs the
> organisation between general meetings; it doesn't create a split board
> unlike Roeolf's proposal; it works regardless of whether IANA stewardship
> is concentrated solely within ICANN or is distributed between organisations
> as it is today. It's a model most people are familiar with.
>
> In the discussion this morning some people offered feedback that it would
> be complicated. I agree that there are some design decisions that would
> need to be made:
>
> a) what classes of membership are available
> b) what powers do the members collectively have and how do they make use
> of them
> c) what majorities are required in order for decisions to stick
>
> It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs
> effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It
> would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder
> constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across
> these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one
> vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
>
> If this is a concept to explore and develop further as part of our work, I
> am happy to help. I have direct experience of this at InternetNZ, and
> through other organisations. I know many of you would too.
>
>
> cheers
> Jordan
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150119/caaae78c/attachment.html>