[CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts

[Carlos Raul]

I see a common trend here between the separation of "Outside Directors" in
an NomCom elected Executive Board with certain liability standards, and
above them a Membership representation in the Supervisory Board
controlling, as proposed in the Rough Sketch. But have not read all the
exchanges for Frankfurt yet.

*Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez*
_________
Apartado 1571-1000
*COSTA RICA*


On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
wrote:

>   Thanks Jordan, that’s very helpful. My observation is that the visions
> have a common strategic line: shifting some of the powers of the ICANN
> board to another structure and that structure containing
> customers/stakeholders. How this structure is „filled” and positioned in
> the governance structure of ICANN, is where the differences occur. One
> could consider that to be details, indeed to be explored and developed
>
>  Regards,
>
>  Roelof Meijer
>
>   From: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Date: maandag 19 januari 2015 16:00
> To: Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
>
>   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/20150120/928d2aac/attachment.html>