Am 14.04.2015 um 05:07 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>:Hi,_______________________________________________
Maybe we should refer to the AC/SO entities that would gain the member attribute as Statutory Members. If we get into the habit of refereing to them that way, it might be easier to keep the difference in mind.
Or even use a standard explanatory phrase, instead of the simple noun, until it becomes a bingo term: The AC/SO acting as statutory members ...
avri
On 13-Apr-15 19:15, Greg Shatan wrote:
James,
Unfortunately, members are members, and they are substantively different from delegates or designators.
Sometimes, non-profits call people "members" who really aren't (e.g., I am not really a statutory "member" of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, even though I have a membership card in my wallet). This is typically allowed by statute. Unfortunately, it doesn't work the other way around -- there's nothing else to call members, as far as I know.
So, I think we just need to be clear that we are contemplating nothing more than taking the current organizations that participate in ICANN governance, and making them into the "members." It should be thought of as a conversion of the current structure (merely rearranging the current elements) in this instance. New classes of actors are not being created.
Greg
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:05 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Jordan:
Good clarification, but it is concerning that this (mis)conception is being heard outside the ccwg. Could we do a better job in terms of messaging? Are there legally and functionally equivalent terms ("delegate") that are less prone to creating confusion?
Thank you,
J.____________James BladelGoDaddydear all
I just wanted to make a comment as rapporteur for the community empowerment working party.
There is some discussion outside our ccwg and outside our working party that the discussion of membership as an option to empower the community could lead to an Individualised membership system, where interested members of the public would join ICANN.
That is not right.
That is not what is on the table.
Membership might be a vehicle to give ICANN's multi stakeholder community more power within ICANN. It would do that through structures that relate to ICANN as it is today, a collection of constituencies organised through SOs and ACs.
The organisation will remain a bottom up, multistakeholder one. The work through SOs and ACs will continue.
Nobody has proposed sweeping this away and replacing it with individual membership, recruitment drives, and so on.
Trust this helps.
CheersJordan
Jordan CarterRapporteur, WP1
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community