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

Thu Jan 22 03:16:11 UTC 2015

One big question on this will be, who funds those external organizations?
Working in line of NRO/ASO was also a possible route proposed within ALAC
but my personal view is that such route could work if the existing regional
TLD associations(it's called AFTLD in Africa region) form a nro like body
which then becomes a ASO like representation within ICANN.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 22 Jan 2015 04:03, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just brainstorming: one possibility may be to create "mirror" or "alter
> ego" organizations (perhaps corporations, perhaps some other form of
> organized entity), roughly along the lines of the NRO/ASO relationship (the
> ASO is an ICANN internal structure, while the NRO is not, yet they are
> essentially "alter egos").  Thus, each SO and AC could create an entity
> independent of ICANN, but answerable to that SO and AC.  The external
> entities could then be members of ICANN.  There are certainly difficulties
> with this idea (in particular, the GAC may be an issue, and the non-ccNSO
> ccTLDs may also be an issue), but it's an idea.  These organizations would
> not be owned by the their "alter egos" (in the US, for instance, non-profit
> organizations generally cannot owned by any third party), so that may
> alleviate some concerns.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Yes there are difficulties in a component becoming a controlling entity.
>> But I think there were those who thought it was possible.  So probably
>> worth checking out by those working on the model.  I understand the right
>> lawyer can build almost anything.
>>
>> What examples of working models (existing wheels of the right type) for
>> ICANN membership would you point to as worth exploring?
>>
>> It was a good meeting.  Happy I could be there.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 21-Jan-15 04:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>>
>> How can any internal structure of a company become "member" of said
>> company?
>>
>>  And, as far as the Country Codes are concerned it can not work, as not
>> all are members, and some might leave, depending on policy development.
>>
>>  There are similar organizations that have solved that problem, so I
>> would look at those, before reinventing the wheel.
>>
>>  el
>>
>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:51, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>   Hi,
>>
>> Denic has a reasonable basis for membership.
>>
>> I cannot understand what reasonable form that membership would take for
>> ICANN.  And as Robin's notes shows, it may not be necessary to achieve our
>> goals.
>>
>> We talked about SOAC [or their chairs], for example,  are they all equal
>> in represenation and voting weight, or do we need to negotiate some other
>> form of balance?  And what if new SOAC were to be created by the Board?
>> What about the GAC, can a government entitiy join a California membership
>> corporation? And if not based on SOAC, then what.  Would it cost to join,
>> and would that appropriate? If it did cost would that leave civil sociey
>> behind?  If it thee was not some sort of control would one sector or region
>> predominate?  Would we need to force a balance.  Could governments join?
>> How would someone maintain membership - is it permanent or does it take a
>> renewal process.
>>
>> And those are just the first questions.  Membership sounds like an easy
>> solution but the complexities are mind boggling.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 21-Jan-15 08:40, Dr Eberhard WLisse wrote:
>>
>> Just for the record Nominet barely avoided capture, and by borderline
>> means...
>>
>>  DENIC has some form of membership (industry).
>>
>>  el
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
>>
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>
>>   Team:
>>
>>  I'd like to associate myself with Greg’s comments (below).  We cannot
>> rule out proposed structures due to their novelty, and anticipated
>> weaknesses are simply indicators that we need to continue working to
>> improve/flesh out the idea(s).
>>
>>  In fact, I don’t believe is all that unknown in our industry.  Two
>> large ccTLDs (UK and CA) have some recognized form of membership that
>> participates in governance and policy development in the TLD.  And I am of
>> the opinion that a well-designed membership structure could be an excellent
>> safeguard against capture of ICANN by a majority of the Board, or a
>> single SO/AC.
>>
>>  Thanks to all for a productive meeting in Frankfurt, look forward to
>> future discussions, and see you in Singapore.
>>
>>  Thanks—
>>
>>  J.
>>
>>
>>
>>   From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38
>> To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
>>
>>   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
>>>
>>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150122/125f8aa8/attachment.html>