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

Thu Jan 22 11:21:58 UTC 2015

Dear all,

Avri is right. We can’t propose a membership organization without setting
very clear and objective rules that make it fair and sustainable, without
loosing the multi-stakeholder dimension and the public interest. The biggest
danger would be the capture. Too complex
.

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

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone:  + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax:       + 216 70 853 376

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

De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Avri
Doria
Envoyé : mercredi 21 janvier 2015 09:51
À : accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts

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 list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150122/ef60e440/attachment.html>