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.
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