Hello All, I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using members as a way of holding ICANN accountable. Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work. My advice though would be to try to keep it simple. The idea of creating separate unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc - just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for outsiders to really understand how ICANN works. It already takes years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work.
From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their office. This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure.
Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly constituted motion according to the procedures of that group. Ie the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the decision of the respective SO and AC. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
+1
On 23 May 2015, at 09:41, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using members as a way of holding ICANN accountable.
Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work.
My advice though would be to try to keep it simple. The idea of creating separate unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc - just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for outsiders to really understand how ICANN works. It already takes years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work.
From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their office. This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure.
Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly constituted motion according to the procedures of that group. Ie the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the decision of the respective SO and AC.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Bruce Thanks. Before making any further comment, pls clarify what do you mean by " indemnity" in what sense , for what purpose and why? While I agree to simplify the , I have other comment to offer Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 23 May 2015, at 10:41, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using members as a way of holding ICANN accountable.
Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work.
My advice though would be to try to keep it simple. The idea of creating separate unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc - just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for outsiders to really understand how ICANN works. It already takes years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work.
From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their office. This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure.
Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly constituted motion according to the procedures of that group. Ie the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the decision of the respective SO and AC.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Kavouss,
Before making any further comment, pls clarify what do you mean by " indemnity" in what sense , for what purpose and why?
I am thinking of scenarios where "members" may over-turn a decision of the ICANN Board that exposes them to legal action from a third party that may have been affected by the decision of the members. The idea here would be that ICANN would cover the member for their legal expenses in defending against such a legal action, and potentially pay for damages that may be awarded by a court if the legal action is successful. For example Board members are generally covered under directors and officers liability insurance etc to provide protection if a third party takes legal action against them in their role as directors, as long as the directors have not been negligent in their duties. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors_and_officers_liability_insurance Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, Agreed. If we go to a member structure this would be the simplest and easiest way of achieving it. And by indemnity I assume you mean an indemnity as to any personal liability the member may incur by, say, being sued in their capacity as a member etc.. I think that's both necessary and workable in such a structure. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 23 May 2015, at 18:43, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using members as a way of holding ICANN accountable.
Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work.
My advice though would be to try to keep it simple. The idea of creating separate unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc - just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for outsiders to really understand how ICANN works. It already takes years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work.
From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their office. This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure.
Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly constituted motion according to the procedures of that group. Ie the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the decision of the respective SO and AC.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All Yes the suggestions made by Bruce were made sometimes ago by Malcolm and if I remember by Allen. However, there are other problems of second level of accountability of the proposed person(s) as well as creation of an environment in which either too many people in each SO/AC competing With each other ( tension) or no one wishes to accept that responsibility it no confidence to few people representing the entire community We need to discuss these issues Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 23 May 2015, at 11:01, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Bruce,
Agreed. If we go to a member structure this would be the simplest and easiest way of achieving it.
And by indemnity I assume you mean an indemnity as to any personal liability the member may incur by, say, being sued in their capacity as a member etc.. I think that's both necessary and workable in such a structure.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 23 May 2015, at 18:43, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using members as a way of holding ICANN accountable.
Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work.
My advice though would be to try to keep it simple. The idea of creating separate unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc - just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for outsiders to really understand how ICANN works. It already takes years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work.
From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their office. This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure.
Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly constituted motion according to the procedures of that group. Ie the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the decision of the respective SO and AC.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
Some details to work out but this seems workable Becky Burr Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 02:02, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: Bruce, Agreed. If we go to a member structure this would be the simplest and easiest way of achieving it. And by indemnity I assume you mean an indemnity as to any personal liability the member may incur by, say, being sued in their capacity as a member etc.. I think that's both necessary and workable in such a structure. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au> auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator On 23 May 2015, at 18:43, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello All, I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using members as a way of holding ICANN accountable. Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work. My advice though would be to try to keep it simple. The idea of creating separate unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc - just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for outsiders to really understand how ICANN works. It already takes years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work. From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their office. This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure. Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly constituted motion according to the procedures of that group. Ie the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the decision of the respective SO and AC. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Not of this applies to individual ccTLD Managers. Whether they are members of ccNSO or not. Or understand any of it. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On May 23, 2015, at 20:27, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
Some details to work out but this seems workable
Becky Burr Sent from my iPhone
On May 23, 2015, at 02:02, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Bruce,
Agreed. If we go to a member structure this would be the simplest and easiest way of achieving it.
And by indemnity I assume you mean an indemnity as to any personal liability the member may incur by, say, being sued in their capacity as a member etc.. I think that's both necessary and workable in such a structure.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 23 May 2015, at 18:43, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: Hello All, I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using members as a way of holding ICANN accountable. Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work. My advice though would be to try to keep it simple. The idea of creating separate unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc - just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for outsiders to really understand how ICANN works. It already takes years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work. From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their office. This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure. Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly constituted motion according to the procedures of that group. Ie the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the decision of the respective SO and AC. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1, I personally find the explanation to be short and easily understandable; which is quite in contrast to what i have been experiencing so far in regards to membership models discussions on this list. That said, it may be good to hear from legal team what the pros/cons of going this route would be. Looking forward to more devils that may be in the details. Thanks Bruce Regards On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using members as a way of holding ICANN accountable.
Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work.
My advice though would be to try to keep it simple. The idea of creating separate unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc - just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for outsiders to really understand how ICANN works. It already takes years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work.
From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their office. This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure.
Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly constituted motion according to the procedures of that group. Ie the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the decision of the respective SO and AC.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Although something we certainly should explore and consider I would proceed very cautiously in anointing natural persons as members. My concern has to do more with statutory rights that come with membership than anything we're proposing for internal governance. Although perhaps initially easier to conceptualize organizationally, the use of some rights granted may be less easy to understand or implement under a natural person model. Do we want to rest in an individual the right and / or obligation for filing requests for documents or for litigation under the derivative lawsuit powers granted members? Do we want a situation where lawsuits would be Greenberg v. ICANN rather than ALAC v. ICANN, for example? Do we really intend to force community members, SG's or Constituencies for example, to have to go through a natural person to obtain access to ICANN corporate records as provided for in the California Corporations Code? My initial impulse would be to suggest that the shell UA model would be a better vehicle in which to actually use the powers granted members although the natural person model might be a bit easier to understand at conception. I look forward to input from independent counsel and for further discussion on this matter. Sent from my iPad
On May 23, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
I have been reading the various discussions on the topic of using members as a way of holding ICANN accountable.
Speaking personally - I think the concept of members can work.
My advice though would be to try to keep it simple. The idea of creating separate unincorporated versions of the GAC, ccNSO etc - just adds complexity that makes it more and more difficult for outsiders to really understand how ICANN works. It already takes years to understand how the GNSO or ALAC processes work.
From my personal perspective - we should just allow the SOs and ACs to appoint their chairs/vice-chairs or nominated representatives as "members" of ICANN for a term that matches the term of their office. This seems to require minimal change in ICANN's existing structure.
Each individual that is selected to become a member of ICANN could then sign an agreement with ICANN that ensures that ICANN provides some indemnity for the member, provided that the member operates in accordance with the direction of their SO and AC through a properly constituted motion according to the procedures of that group. Ie the member would have a very narrow role to basically convey the decision of the respective SO and AC.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (8)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Burr, Becky -
Chris Disspain -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Edward Morris -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Seun Ojedeji