Hi all
This thread is useful to tease out some of the questions and concerns and confusions with the UA model, and as rapporteur for the WP responsible for refining this part of the proposal I am reading it avidly.
I just want to take the opportunity to remind us all why membership (or something analogous) is an important aspect of the reforms we are proposing - no matter the precise details.
At the moment without members, ICANN is fundamentally controlled by the Board. The only external constraint is the IANA functions contract with NTIA. The long list of community concerns and examples detailed by our earlier work in this CCWG shows that even with that constraint, accountability isn't up to scratch.
We are working on a settlement without that NTIA contract. Accountability has to get better even *with* the contract. Fundamentally better, without it.
Either we have a membership structure or some other durable approach that firmly embeds the stewardship of ICANN and the DNS in the ICANN community, or... we remain with Board control.
Given ICANN's history, anyone who is advocating a continuation of Board control is arguing for a model that can't be suitably accountable, and that seems highly likely to fail over time, with real risks to the security and stability of the DNS.
A real, fundamental source of power over the company absent the contract *has* to be established. The membership model is the most suitable one to achieve that that we have considered so far.
So: we need to be creative and thoughtful in how we make that model work in a fashion that disrupts ICANN's general operation as little as possible. But the key there is "as possible." Real change is needed and much refinement and comment is needed.
If there are proposals to achieve the same shift in control from ICANN the corporation to ICANN the community, I hope they come through in the comment period. So far, none have - but there are still two weeks of comments to go.
cheers
Jordan