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

[Sivasubramanian M]

Please read the first sentence as follows:

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


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

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20150121/23e63aa2/attachment.html>