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

Thu Jan 22 10:39:34 UTC 2015

Hi Seun,

For your information we have a similar organization check out
www.rtldo.org. Our boards meet frequently during every ICANN meeting
to discuss issues of mutual concern. We also work on joint projects
such as surveys whose results are frequently shared within ICANN.

Best Regards

On 1/22/15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>

-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254-20-2498789
Skype: barrack.otieno
http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/