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

[Sivasubramanian M]

Dear Greg

Are we talking about designating AC / SO chairs or Members accorded the
status of ICANN members to participate in decisions?  If the idea is this,
then it becomes closer to the idea of creating a Cross Community Structure.

If any other types of "Membership" is discussed, I will start with a few
questions, with openness, to go along with you to first visualize how a
membership based system could be designed and then examine it thoroughly
for possible flaws:

1.   Membership in ICANN or Membership in Ry Stakeholder Group, Membership
in ALAC, Membership in GAC?

2.   Free Membership / Paid Membership ?

3.   Open for all / Criteria Based Membership ?

4.   If fee based,  would it be membership based on a unified fee or Tiered
Membership ranging from a dollar to a million per membership?  If Tiered,
would it have equal privileges across the tiers (which is not practical) ?

5.  If each constituency is to have its own Membership rules, and if the Ry
Stakeholder group is a $10000 membership and At Large is a hundred dollar
or criteria based membership, does At Large get to be seated equally?


Sivasubramanian M



Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20150121/df410a6c/attachment.html>