[CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
Hi all I wanted to explain a bit more why I thought implementing a membership system might be an addition to accountability. The main point is in building an ICANN that is less centralised. At the moment, in respect of policymaking, the ICANN bylaws set out various requirements. E.g. my understanding is that the ICANN Board can't make generally policy for ccTLDs except in endorsing the outcome of a PDP from the ccNSO (I caveat it with the fact I haven't researched the bylaws). There are other areas of ICANN work where there isn't external control of the board. E.g. the budget-setting process, governing scope, and so on. A lightweight membership structure that gave representatives from the SOs and ACs (and maybe more widely, though at this point I don't see the argument for that) a particular role at a particular general meeting (e.g. approving the budget, approving new members, ratifying changes to the bylaws) would provide new accountability in a fairly straightforward manner. Such an approach doesn't change the fact the ICANN Board governs the organisation between general meetings; it doesn't create a split board unlike Roeolf's proposal; it works regardless of whether IANA stewardship is concentrated solely within ICANN or is distributed between organisations as it is today. It's a model most people are familiar with. In the discussion this morning some people offered feedback that it would be complicated. I agree that there are some design decisions that would need to be made: a) what classes of membership are available b) what powers do the members collectively have and how do they make use of them c) what majorities are required in order for decisions to stick It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user. If this is a concept to explore and develop further as part of our work, I am happy to help. I have direct experience of this at InternetNZ, and through other organisations. I know many of you would too. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
Thanks Jordan, very constructive. I would also be happy to help further develop this line of thinking. Best, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 10:00 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts Hi all I wanted to explain a bit more why I thought implementing a membership system might be an addition to accountability. The main point is in building an ICANN that is less centralised. At the moment, in respect of policymaking, the ICANN bylaws set out various requirements. E.g. my understanding is that the ICANN Board can't make generally policy for ccTLDs except in endorsing the outcome of a PDP from the ccNSO (I caveat it with the fact I haven't researched the bylaws). There are other areas of ICANN work where there isn't external control of the board. E.g. the budget-setting process, governing scope, and so on. A lightweight membership structure that gave representatives from the SOs and ACs (and maybe more widely, though at this point I don't see the argument for that) a particular role at a particular general meeting (e.g. approving the budget, approving new members, ratifying changes to the bylaws) would provide new accountability in a fairly straightforward manner. Such an approach doesn't change the fact the ICANN Board governs the organisation between general meetings; it doesn't create a split board unlike Roeolf's proposal; it works regardless of whether IANA stewardship is concentrated solely within ICANN or is distributed between organisations as it is today. It's a model most people are familiar with. In the discussion this morning some people offered feedback that it would be complicated. I agree that there are some design decisions that would need to be made: a) what classes of membership are available b) what powers do the members collectively have and how do they make use of them c) what majorities are required in order for decisions to stick It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user. If this is a concept to explore and develop further as part of our work, I am happy to help. I have direct experience of this at InternetNZ, and through other organisations. I know many of you would too. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
Thanks Jordan, that’s very helpful. My observation is that the visions have a common strategic line: shifting some of the powers of the ICANN board to another structure and that structure containing customers/stakeholders. How this structure is „filled” and positioned in the governance structure of ICANN, is where the differences occur. One could consider that to be details, indeed to be explored and developed Regards, Roelof Meijer From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: maandag 19 januari 2015 16:00 To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts Hi all I wanted to explain a bit more why I thought implementing a membership system might be an addition to accountability. The main point is in building an ICANN that is less centralised. At the moment, in respect of policymaking, the ICANN bylaws set out various requirements. E.g. my understanding is that the ICANN Board can't make generally policy for ccTLDs except in endorsing the outcome of a PDP from the ccNSO (I caveat it with the fact I haven't researched the bylaws). There are other areas of ICANN work where there isn't external control of the board. E.g. the budget-setting process, governing scope, and so on. A lightweight membership structure that gave representatives from the SOs and ACs (and maybe more widely, though at this point I don't see the argument for that) a particular role at a particular general meeting (e.g. approving the budget, approving new members, ratifying changes to the bylaws) would provide new accountability in a fairly straightforward manner. Such an approach doesn't change the fact the ICANN Board governs the organisation between general meetings; it doesn't create a split board unlike Roeolf's proposal; it works regardless of whether IANA stewardship is concentrated solely within ICANN or is distributed between organisations as it is today. It's a model most people are familiar with. In the discussion this morning some people offered feedback that it would be complicated. I agree that there are some design decisions that would need to be made: a) what classes of membership are available b) what powers do the members collectively have and how do they make use of them c) what majorities are required in order for decisions to stick It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user. If this is a concept to explore and develop further as part of our work, I am happy to help. I have direct experience of this at InternetNZ, and through other organisations. I know many of you would too. cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
I see a common trend here between the separation of "Outside Directors" in an NomCom elected Executive Board with certain liability standards, and above them a Membership representation in the Supervisory Board controlling, as proposed in the Rough Sketch. But have not read all the exchanges for Frankfurt yet. *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Thanks Jordan, that’s very helpful. My observation is that the visions have a common strategic line: shifting some of the powers of the ICANN board to another structure and that structure containing customers/stakeholders. How this structure is „filled” and positioned in the governance structure of ICANN, is where the differences occur. One could consider that to be details, indeed to be explored and developed
Regards,
Roelof Meijer
From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: maandag 19 januari 2015 16:00 To: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
Hi all
I wanted to explain a bit more why I thought implementing a membership system might be an addition to accountability.
The main point is in building an ICANN that is less centralised.
At the moment, in respect of policymaking, the ICANN bylaws set out various requirements. E.g. my understanding is that the ICANN Board can't make generally policy for ccTLDs except in endorsing the outcome of a PDP from the ccNSO (I caveat it with the fact I haven't researched the bylaws).
There are other areas of ICANN work where there isn't external control of the board. E.g. the budget-setting process, governing scope, and so on.
A lightweight membership structure that gave representatives from the SOs and ACs (and maybe more widely, though at this point I don't see the argument for that) a particular role at a particular general meeting (e.g. approving the budget, approving new members, ratifying changes to the bylaws) would provide new accountability in a fairly straightforward manner.
Such an approach doesn't change the fact the ICANN Board governs the organisation between general meetings; it doesn't create a split board unlike Roeolf's proposal; it works regardless of whether IANA stewardship is concentrated solely within ICANN or is distributed between organisations as it is today. It's a model most people are familiar with.
In the discussion this morning some people offered feedback that it would be complicated. I agree that there are some design decisions that would need to be made:
a) what classes of membership are available b) what powers do the members collectively have and how do they make use of them c) what majorities are required in order for decisions to stick
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
If this is a concept to explore and develop further as part of our work, I am happy to help. I have direct experience of this at InternetNZ, and through other organisations. I know many of you would too.
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Members approach could indeed help and is something worth further thinking through. One thing I like to clarify though is that proposing SO/AC leaders to actually serve as ICANN members could indirectly increase the political attention on those positions which will also call for accountability from those leaders, it may also be good to consider how such structure scale for any future memberships (creation of new SO/AC?). I guess my main point is that membership that is not exercised by the directly concerned (like we have in RIRs) would still be of concern. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 19 Jan 2015 16:00, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all
I wanted to explain a bit more why I thought implementing a membership system might be an addition to accountability.
The main point is in building an ICANN that is less centralised.
At the moment, in respect of policymaking, the ICANN bylaws set out various requirements. E.g. my understanding is that the ICANN Board can't make generally policy for ccTLDs except in endorsing the outcome of a PDP from the ccNSO (I caveat it with the fact I haven't researched the bylaws).
There are other areas of ICANN work where there isn't external control of the board. E.g. the budget-setting process, governing scope, and so on.
A lightweight membership structure that gave representatives from the SOs and ACs (and maybe more widely, though at this point I don't see the argument for that) a particular role at a particular general meeting (e.g. approving the budget, approving new members, ratifying changes to the bylaws) would provide new accountability in a fairly straightforward manner.
Such an approach doesn't change the fact the ICANN Board governs the organisation between general meetings; it doesn't create a split board unlike Roeolf's proposal; it works regardless of whether IANA stewardship is concentrated solely within ICANN or is distributed between organisations as it is today. It's a model most people are familiar with.
In the discussion this morning some people offered feedback that it would be complicated. I agree that there are some design decisions that would need to be made:
a) what classes of membership are available b) what powers do the members collectively have and how do they make use of them c) what majorities are required in order for decisions to stick
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
If this is a concept to explore and develop further as part of our work, I am happy to help. I have direct experience of this at InternetNZ, and through other organisations. I know many of you would too.
cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Jordan,
a) what classes of membership are available
I think you also need to look at diversity. The SO and AC chairs for example have over time often been dominated by people from countries where the native language is English and are generally developed countries. The bylaws go to some lengths to try to ensure that the ICANN Board is more diverse - that is partly why it is so large. So while having a membership structure based on chairs of ACs and SOs is relatively simple to implement - it may not truly take into account the global diversity of the global public. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, as far as the ccNSO is concerned, I really don't follow. Each region has 3 representatives on Council and 3 are selected by the NomCom. As fars as I can recall, Council has elected from themselves Chairs from New Zealand, Australia, Canada (ie ccTLDs without much baggage) and (briefly) from the UK. I don't believe that the ccNSO or its Council is dominated. At all. It has a long history of being inclusive, in particular towards non ccNSO members. I am in any case totally opposed to have a membership based on chairs of ACs/SOs. They are elected, and for that we have the Board. I do have concerns about capture if we take all comers, however. So I don't have the solution either... el On 2015-01-19 16:57 , Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Jordan,
a) what classes of membership are available
I think you also need to look at diversity. The SO and AC chairs for example have over time often been dominated by people from countries where the native language is English and are generally developed countries.
The bylaws go to some lengths to try to ensure that the ICANN Board is more diverse - that is partly why it is so large.
So while having a membership structure based on chairs of ACs and SOs is relatively simple to implement - it may not truly take into account the global diversity of the global public.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin [...]
Hello Eberhard,
as far as the ccNSO is concerned, I really don't follow.
I am not making a comment about the diversity of the ccNSO or the ccNSO Council, I am just making a comment about the likely geographic/cultural composition of a group that comprises purely the chairs of the SOs and ACs at ICANN. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Shouldn't the same rules of Acc / Trans that we are looking forward for ICANN also apply at the level of the SO/ACs? Or even for all of the I* bodies? Shouldn't that include geographic representativeness as in GAC and ALAC? *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Jordan,
a) what classes of membership are available
I think you also need to look at diversity. The SO and AC chairs for example have over time often been dominated by people from countries where the native language is English and are generally developed countries.
The bylaws go to some lengths to try to ensure that the ICANN Board is more diverse - that is partly why it is so large.
So while having a membership structure based on chairs of ACs and SOs is relatively simple to implement - it may not truly take into account the global diversity of the global public.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Jordan, thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below: On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers. Sivasubramanain M Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Greg Are we talking about designating AC / SO chairs or Members accorded the status of ICANN members to participate in decisions? If the idea is this, then it becomes closer to the idea of creating a Cross Community Structure. If any other types of "Membership" is discussed, I will start with a few questions, with openness, to go along with you to first visualize how a membership based system could be designed and then examine it thoroughly for possible flaws: 1. Membership in ICANN or Membership in Ry Stakeholder Group, Membership in ALAC, Membership in GAC? 2. Free Membership / Paid Membership ? 3. Open for all / Criteria Based Membership ? 4. If fee based, would it be membership based on a unified fee or Tiered Membership ranging from a dollar to a million per membership? If Tiered, would it have equal privileges across the tiers (which is not practical) ? 5. If each constituency is to have its own Membership rules, and if the Ry Stakeholder group is a $10000 membership and At Large is a hundred dollar or criteria based membership, does At Large get to be seated equally? Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
Please read the first sentence as follows: Are we talking about designating AC/SO chairs / Representatives as ICANN members to participate in decisions? If the idea is this, then it becomes closer to the idea of creating a Cross Community Structure. Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg
Are we talking about designating AC / SO chairs or Members accorded the status of ICANN members to participate in decisions? If the idea is this, then it becomes closer to the idea of creating a Cross Community Structure.
If any other types of "Membership" is discussed, I will start with a few questions, with openness, to go along with you to first visualize how a membership based system could be designed and then examine it thoroughly for possible flaws:
1. Membership in ICANN or Membership in Ry Stakeholder Group, Membership in ALAC, Membership in GAC?
2. Free Membership / Paid Membership ?
3. Open for all / Criteria Based Membership ?
4. If fee based, would it be membership based on a unified fee or Tiered Membership ranging from a dollar to a million per membership? If Tiered, would it have equal privileges across the tiers (which is not practical) ?
5. If each constituency is to have its own Membership rules, and if the Ry Stakeholder group is a $10000 membership and At Large is a hundred dollar or criteria based membership, does At Large get to be seated equally?
Sivasubramanian M
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com
wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
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. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts 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 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote: I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers. Sivasubramanain M Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jordan, thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below: On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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
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
On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
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.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote: I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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
On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
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.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote:
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote: > > It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs > effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It > would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join > stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total > votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have > a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say > as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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 <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
How can any internal structure of a company become "member" of said company? And, as far as the Country Codes are concerned it can not work, as not all are members, and some might leave, depending on policy development. There are similar organizations that have solved that problem, so I would look at those, before reinventing the wheel. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:51, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
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
On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
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.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote: I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, Yes there are difficulties in a component becoming a controlling entity. But I think there were those who thought it was possible. So probably worth checking out by those working on the model. I understand the right lawyer can build almost anything. What examples of working models (existing wheels of the right type) for ICANN membership would you point to as worth exploring? It was a good meeting. Happy I could be there. avri On 21-Jan-15 04:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
How can any internal structure of a company become "member" of said company?
And, as far as the Country Codes are concerned it can not work, as not all are members, and some might leave, depending on policy development.
There are similar organizations that have solved that problem, so I would look at those, before reinventing the wheel.
el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:51, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
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
On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
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.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote:
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote: > > It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs > effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It > would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join > stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total > votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have > a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say > as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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 <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
_______________________________________________ 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
Just brainstorming: one possibility may be to create "mirror" or "alter ego" organizations (perhaps corporations, perhaps some other form of organized entity), roughly along the lines of the NRO/ASO relationship (the ASO is an ICANN internal structure, while the NRO is not, yet they are essentially "alter egos"). Thus, each SO and AC could create an entity independent of ICANN, but answerable to that SO and AC. The external entities could then be members of ICANN. There are certainly difficulties with this idea (in particular, the GAC may be an issue, and the non-ccNSO ccTLDs may also be an issue), but it's an idea. These organizations would not be owned by the their "alter egos" (in the US, for instance, non-profit organizations generally cannot owned by any third party), so that may alleviate some concerns. Greg Shatan On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Yes there are difficulties in a component becoming a controlling entity. But I think there were those who thought it was possible. So probably worth checking out by those working on the model. I understand the right lawyer can build almost anything.
What examples of working models (existing wheels of the right type) for ICANN membership would you point to as worth exploring?
It was a good meeting. Happy I could be there.
avri
On 21-Jan-15 04:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
How can any internal structure of a company become "member" of said company?
And, as far as the Country Codes are concerned it can not work, as not all are members, and some might leave, depending on policy development.
There are similar organizations that have solved that problem, so I would look at those, before reinventing the wheel.
el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:51, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
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
On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
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.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
One big question on this will be, who funds those external organizations? Working in line of NRO/ASO was also a possible route proposed within ALAC but my personal view is that such route could work if the existing regional TLD associations(it's called AFTLD in Africa region) form a nro like body which then becomes a ASO like representation within ICANN. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22 Jan 2015 04:03, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Just brainstorming: one possibility may be to create "mirror" or "alter ego" organizations (perhaps corporations, perhaps some other form of organized entity), roughly along the lines of the NRO/ASO relationship (the ASO is an ICANN internal structure, while the NRO is not, yet they are essentially "alter egos"). Thus, each SO and AC could create an entity independent of ICANN, but answerable to that SO and AC. The external entities could then be members of ICANN. There are certainly difficulties with this idea (in particular, the GAC may be an issue, and the non-ccNSO ccTLDs may also be an issue), but it's an idea. These organizations would not be owned by the their "alter egos" (in the US, for instance, non-profit organizations generally cannot owned by any third party), so that may alleviate some concerns.
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Yes there are difficulties in a component becoming a controlling entity. But I think there were those who thought it was possible. So probably worth checking out by those working on the model. I understand the right lawyer can build almost anything.
What examples of working models (existing wheels of the right type) for ICANN membership would you point to as worth exploring?
It was a good meeting. Happy I could be there.
avri
On 21-Jan-15 04:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
How can any internal structure of a company become "member" of said company?
And, as far as the Country Codes are concerned it can not work, as not all are members, and some might leave, depending on policy development.
There are similar organizations that have solved that problem, so I would look at those, before reinventing the wheel.
el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:51, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
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
On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
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.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com
wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi Seun, For your information we have a similar organization check out www.rtldo.org. Our boards meet frequently during every ICANN meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern. We also work on joint projects such as surveys whose results are frequently shared within ICANN. Best Regards On 1/22/15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
One big question on this will be, who funds those external organizations? Working in line of NRO/ASO was also a possible route proposed within ALAC but my personal view is that such route could work if the existing regional TLD associations(it's called AFTLD in Africa region) form a nro like body which then becomes a ASO like representation within ICANN.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22 Jan 2015 04:03, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Just brainstorming: one possibility may be to create "mirror" or "alter ego" organizations (perhaps corporations, perhaps some other form of organized entity), roughly along the lines of the NRO/ASO relationship (the ASO is an ICANN internal structure, while the NRO is not, yet they are essentially "alter egos"). Thus, each SO and AC could create an entity independent of ICANN, but answerable to that SO and AC. The external entities could then be members of ICANN. There are certainly difficulties with this idea (in particular, the GAC may be an issue, and the non-ccNSO ccTLDs may also be an issue), but it's an idea. These organizations would not be owned by the their "alter egos" (in the US, for instance, non-profit organizations generally cannot owned by any third party), so that may alleviate some concerns.
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Yes there are difficulties in a component becoming a controlling entity. But I think there were those who thought it was possible. So probably worth checking out by those working on the model. I understand the right lawyer can build almost anything.
What examples of working models (existing wheels of the right type) for ICANN membership would you point to as worth exploring?
It was a good meeting. Happy I could be there.
avri
On 21-Jan-15 04:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
How can any internal structure of a company become "member" of said company?
And, as far as the Country Codes are concerned it can not work, as not all are members, and some might leave, depending on policy development.
There are similar organizations that have solved that problem, so I would look at those, before reinventing the wheel.
el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:51, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
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
On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
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.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com
wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
Great! makes it even better. So if there is strong consideration using that model i guess fact that the structures are already inplace will make things easier. Thanks for the info Cheers! On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Seun,
For your information we have a similar organization check out www.rtldo.org. Our boards meet frequently during every ICANN meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern. We also work on joint projects such as surveys whose results are frequently shared within ICANN.
Best Regards
On 1/22/15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
One big question on this will be, who funds those external organizations? Working in line of NRO/ASO was also a possible route proposed within ALAC but my personal view is that such route could work if the existing regional TLD associations(it's called AFTLD in Africa region) form a nro like body which then becomes a ASO like representation within ICANN.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22 Jan 2015 04:03, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Just brainstorming: one possibility may be to create "mirror" or "alter ego" organizations (perhaps corporations, perhaps some other form of organized entity), roughly along the lines of the NRO/ASO relationship (the ASO is an ICANN internal structure, while the NRO is not, yet they are essentially "alter egos"). Thus, each SO and AC could create an entity independent of ICANN, but answerable to that SO and AC. The external entities could then be members of ICANN. There are certainly difficulties with this idea (in particular, the GAC may be an issue, and the non-ccNSO ccTLDs may also be an issue), but it's an idea. These organizations would not be owned by the their "alter egos" (in the US, for instance, non-profit organizations generally cannot owned by any third party), so that may alleviate some concerns.
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Yes there are difficulties in a component becoming a controlling entity. But I think there were those who thought it was possible. So probably worth checking out by those working on the model. I understand the right lawyer can build almost anything.
What examples of working models (existing wheels of the right type) for ICANN membership would you point to as worth exploring?
It was a good meeting. Happy I could be there.
avri
On 21-Jan-15 04:20, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
How can any internal structure of a company become "member" of said company?
And, as far as the Country Codes are concerned it can not work, as not all are members, and some might leave, depending on policy development.
There are similar organizations that have solved that problem, so I would look at those, before reinventing the wheel.
el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:51, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
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
On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
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.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M < isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M < https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com
wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote: > > It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC > chairs > effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). > It > would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join > stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of > total > votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to > have > a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same > say > as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps:// 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps:// 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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 !
The Regional Organizations to be called member organizations? I am throwing myself on the ground laughing. el On 2015-01-22 12:39, Barrack Otieno wrote:
Hi Seun,
For your information we have a similar organization check out www.rtldo.org. Our boards meet frequently during every ICANN meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern. We also work on joint projects such as surveys whose results are frequently shared within ICANN.
Best Regards [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear all, Avri is right. We cant propose a membership organization without setting very clear and objective rules that make it fair and sustainable, without loosing the multi-stakeholder dimension and the public interest. The biggest danger would be the capture. Too complex . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : mercredi 21 janvier 2015 09:51 À : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts 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 On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: Team: I'd like to associate myself with Gregs 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 dont 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. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts 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 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote: I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers. Sivasubramanain M Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Jordan, thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below: On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
Avri raises some excellent questions. The need for balance is critical and something I believe can and must be addressed. I look forward to engaging on the membership discussion, and also the possibility of a procedural/non-membership structure. It seems to me that a significant majority of what we need could be addressed through procedure rather than involving membership, but membership might be required to enforce those procedures, to be used only in very rare circumstances. Great meetings this week! Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:51 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts 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 On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: 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. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts 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 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote: I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers. Sivasubramanain M Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jordan, thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below: On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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<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
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
On Jan 20, 2015, at 23:27, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
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.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 20:38 To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts
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
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote:
I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers.
Sivasubramanain M
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote: > > It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs > effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It > would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join > stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total > votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have > a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say > as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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 <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
It is also worth noting that membership need not have a personal cost – e.g., the ISOC individual membership is free and it seems to work well and might prove as a useful model. David McAuley From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:39 PM To: Sivasubramanian M Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts 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 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>> wrote: I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers. Sivasubramanain M Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jordan, thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below: On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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
+1 Sivasubramanian if we take a futuristic approach there is a likelihood of locking out some potential members. Fiona ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn@gmail.com> To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> Cc: "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:08:45 PM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CCWG-Accountability] Membership thoughts I am equally concerned. The idea of moving to a membership based system takes us into an unknown territory. A membership based system shuts out a section of potential participants due to their inability to meet the requirement (money or other) for membership, the system is prone to be captured, and there would be imbalances and unknown dangers. Sivasubramanain M Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond < ocl@gih.com > wrote: Dear Jordan, thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below: On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Won't happen as not al ccTLDs are or will remain members of ccNSO. You can't have an internal, select group as members. All or none, in my view. How are ISOC, the Red Cross/Crescent (etc), Doctors without Borders, or similar Non-Profits set up? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jan 20, 2015, at 20:38, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Won't happen as not al ccTLDs are or will remain members of ccNSO.
You can't have an internal, select group as members.
All or none, in my view.
Fair enough....
How are ISOC, the Red Cross/Crescent (etc), Doctors without Borders, or similar Non-Profits set up?
As far as i am know, ISOC is not a real membership organisation per see (in the sense of accountability to members). Regards
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
On Jan 20, 2015, at 20:38, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Jordan,
thanks for your looking into this in further detail. My comment below:
On 19/01/2015 16:00, Jordan Carter wrote:
It would be straightforward and possible to make e.g. SO and AC chairs
effective "members" of ICANN (we define our own membership system). It
would be harder to allow individuals with some standing to join
stakeholder constituencies of voters and then allocate shares of total
votes across these in a fair way. It would be possible but mad to have
a "one member one vote" system where a ccTLD manager had the same say
as an Internet user.
Isn't what you're describing ICANN version 1, with thousands of individual voters? I agree that did not work and will not work today either. However, I would also really urge caution in turning ICANN into a purely membership organisation that allocates shares of total votes according to size of organisational members. I have seen membership organisations being captured by large players buying out smaller players - the endgame being $$$ controlling the organisation and *not* the public interest. Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *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 !
participants (19)
-
Avri Doria -
Barrack Otieno -
Bruce Tonkin -
Carlos Raul -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard WLisse
-
Drazek, Keith -
Fiona Asonga -
Greg Shatan -
James M. Bladel -
Jordan Carter -
McAuley, David -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roelof Meijer -
Seun Ojedeji -
Sivasubramanian M -
Tijani BEN JEMAA