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

[Greg Shatan]

Siva,

What's your solution?

And how do you think we will be able to avoid unknown territory?  I think
we're going into some kind of unknown territory no matter what, since
"known territory" is unsatisfactory (or else we wouldn't be here).

And why do you assume that potential participants will be shut out?  Any
system, poorly designed, will have problems.  So let's try to design this
well, so it doesn't shut out potential participants.  Any grouping of
people or entities is in some ways "prone to be captured."  But rather than
shoot down the membership concept in a knee-jerk fashion, try to work
toward resolution, or at least try to create some useful "stress tests."
 I'm not saying that a membership organization is the right solution, the
only solution, or even an available solution.  Fighting through the issues
won't be quick or pretty, and it may be the end-result doesn't work.  But
it's too soon to know.

The only way to avoid everything in your email is to stay in bed.

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am equally concerned.  The idea of moving to a membership based system
> takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a
> section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the
> requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be
> captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
>
> Sivasubramanain M
>
> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jordan,
>>
>> thanks for your looking into this in further detail.
>> My comment below:
>>
>> On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of
>> individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today
>> either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into
>> a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes
>> according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership
>> organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players
>> - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the
>> public interest.
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b996df18/attachment.html>