[CCWG-ACCT] Comments/concerns on the SO/AC membership model

[Arun Sukumar]

These are broad concerns addressed to all group members. If co-chairs or
others have addressed these Qs in the townhall I unfortunately missed
today, happy to look up the transcript

1. How does an opt-in membership model sit with the idea that
accountability is asked of the Board as a matter of principle? In other
words, members shouldn't have to labour through the debate of whether they
want to join in or not, without worrying about the Board's actions.
Conversely, if it makes no difference to a community's rights or
responsibilities, is opt-in membership being discussed solely as a legal
method to circumvent opposition to UA?

2. How does the model address the evolution of the community into new
constituencies, or diversity within the existing ones? Keep aside the
concern that bylaws would have to be amended for this exercise -to me, the
notion that some communities can "opt" to join a certain legal universe
strongly discourages others from being part of it or creating new ones. A
certain regime is already in place by the time a member of the internet
community wants to engage with ICANN, but finds it difficult to navigate
the new set of rights and responsibilities that would accrue if the model
is in place. Ordinarily you would have to defer to individuals or
institutions who "know" the rules of the game, which is how elite capture
happens within communities.

arun

-- 
-
@arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
National Law University, New Delhi
Ph: +91-9871943272
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150622/f6919b72/attachment.html>