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

Thu Jan 22 10:50:12 UTC 2015

Great! makes it even better. So if there is strong consideration using that
model i guess fact that the structures are already inplace will make things
easier.

Thanks for the info

Cheers!

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150122/b9ea2ec9/attachment.html>