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

Thu Jan 22 11:42:06 UTC 2015

Greg had strong views that the membership idea could be explored further. I
am curious to know if he has a solution to some of the concerns expressed
by Avri and Tijani and if he still feels that the membership model could be
" fair and sustainable, without loosing the multi-stakeholder dimension.

Sivasubramanian M

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> +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 !
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150122/2dc68803/attachment.html>