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

Thu Jan 22 11:29:29 UTC 2015

+1 as i also think a membership approach could be problematic, i should
however note that the NRO/ASO like structure model suggested is not
necessarily a membership scenario, whether that fixes any accountability is
another issue, and perhaps such model will be best/better discussed within
the CWG setting (especially if there is need to consider an alternate to
contract co)

Regards

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <
tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn> wrote:

>  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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>    <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant
> parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est
> active.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>

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

*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/20150122/06567838/attachment.html>