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
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.
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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community