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

Thu Jan 22 14:31:29 UTC 2015

Avri raises some excellent questions. The need for balance is critical and something I believe can and must be addressed.

I look forward to engaging on the membership discussion, and also the possibility of a procedural/non-membership structure.

It seems to me that a significant majority of what we need could be addressed through procedure rather than involving membership, but membership might be required to enforce those procedures, to be used only in very rare  circumstances.

Great meetings this week!

Regards,
Keith

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:51 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38
To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20150122/235a0ffb/attachment.html>