Clarification on 'membership' - not individual
dear 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. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Rapporteur, WP1 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
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 Bladel GoDaddy On Apr 13, 2015, at 15:15, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: dear 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. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Rapporteur, WP1 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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 Bladel GoDaddy
On Apr 13, 2015, at 15:15, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
dear 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.
Cheers Jordan
Jordan Carter Rapporteur, 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
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 <mailto: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 Bladel GoDaddy
On Apr 13, 2015, at 15:15, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
dear 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.
Cheers Jordan
Jordan Carter Rapporteur, WP1
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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. http://www.avast.com
I like the notion of using a definition rather than a term that can be misunderstood. Let’s make sure we remember Avri’s proposal if and when needed. Thomas
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 <mailto: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 Bladel GoDaddy
On Apr 13, 2015, at 15:15, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
dear 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.
Cheers Jordan
Jordan Carter Rapporteur, WP1
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
All: I second Jordan's email. This confusion may have arisen due to memos prepared by our outside counsel. We asked counsel to review a number of generically available options for us, whether or not these had surfaced in the work of the CCWG. This was an entirely logical request, since the legal experts may be aware of some options that did not come up in our work. It would have been odd to ask that they provide no new material, regardless of their knowledge of corporate governance and structure; after all, that is part of the expertise for which they have been retained. And in fact, their fresh views and ideas have already contributed significantly to our work. In this instance, the approach of "tell me our options" may have been misinterpreted and misconstrued, primarily by those not familiar with all of the CCWG's work. This may be understandable, but it is also quite unfortunate, since it wastes one of our most precious commodities -- time. I hope that Jordan's message reaches those who believe that individual membership is under consideration, and that the realize they are in error. If they are not in reach of this email list, but participants are in reach of these people, it would be helpful if they are corrected on the lists or in the conversations where this mistaken "FUD" is being circulated. To paraphrase Smokey the Bear (apologies for the US-centric reference), "Only You Can Stop FUD Fires." Greg Shatan Legal Subteam On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
dear 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.
Cheers Jordan
Jordan Carter Rapporteur, 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
That’s a clear message, Jordan, and it should do the job. Let’s not overreact. I for one have not come across this misconception or misinterpretation. There are sufficient of us around to react if we do come across it. I –and may others that are aware of the state of affairs- will be participating in the GCCS in The Hague and will make sure to correct if necessary Best, Roelof From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: dinsdag 14 april 2015 01:09 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Clarification on 'membership' - not individual All: I second Jordan's email. This confusion may have arisen due to memos prepared by our outside counsel. We asked counsel to review a number of generically available options for us, whether or not these had surfaced in the work of the CCWG. This was an entirely logical request, since the legal experts may be aware of some options that did not come up in our work. It would have been odd to ask that they provide no new material, regardless of their knowledge of corporate governance and structure; after all, that is part of the expertise for which they have been retained. And in fact, their fresh views and ideas have already contributed significantly to our work. In this instance, the approach of "tell me our options" may have been misinterpreted and misconstrued, primarily by those not familiar with all of the CCWG's work. This may be understandable, but it is also quite unfortunate, since it wastes one of our most precious commodities -- time. I hope that Jordan's message reaches those who believe that individual membership is under consideration, and that the realize they are in error. If they are not in reach of this email list, but participants are in reach of these people, it would be helpful if they are corrected on the lists or in the conversations where this mistaken "FUD" is being circulated. To paraphrase Smokey the Bear (apologies for the US-centric reference), "Only You Can Stop FUD Fires." Greg Shatan Legal Subteam On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: dear 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. Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Rapporteur, WP1 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Greg Shatan -
James M. Bladel -
Jordan Carter -
Roelof Meijer -
Thomas Rickert