[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ifwp] Re: Time for accommodation

Michael and all,

Michael Dillon wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, David Schutt wrote:
> > Please amplify. I have read many statements that there are 'problems' with a
> > membership organization. What I haven't seen are very many -specific-
> > objections. I'm sure if they are spelled out, they can be addressed.
> The claim is that by having a membership structure we make the
> organization more democratic.

  Respectfully this is correct.  Not only does having and Initial
IndividualMembership Organization make the organization more democratic, it also
provides for meeting the requirements of the White Paper in terms of
both structure and representation and meeting the Transparency, openness,
and accountable to the Stakeholder/user community.  And this is the Key.

> However, when we look at existing international Internet organizations
> like ISOC which do have a membership structure, many of the same people
> calling for ICANN to have a membership structure will point out that ISOC
> is not democratic, it's just a small group of insiders and the
> complainants are not willing to join ISOC because that would mean they are
> supporting an organization that has acted in ways they disapprove of.
> Leaving aside the question of whether or not these charges are accurate,
> you can see that a membership organization is not a panacea and there are
> serious problems that could occur.

  THe problems with the ISOC do not stem from it being a "Membership"
organizationper se, rather the problem is that it's membership structure is not an
open one and
has cost barriers that are not reasonable.

> 1. only a very small subset of Internet users are likely to join as ICANN
> members.

  This is an opinion that is not grounded in fact, but based on pure
supposition.Although it may be accurate, it is yet to be known if it is so.

> 2. once ICANN takes policy actions there will be groups of people who
> refuse to join ICANN because they dispute the policies and who will lobby
> loudly and publicly against those policies.

  Of course there will be groups of folks.  This cannot be completely
avoided.However they will have the opportunity to participate freely if they have
an avenue
by which to do so.  Without an Initial INdividual Membership Organization these
"People" to whom you refer have no such recourse that has any meaning.  This is
the single biggest flaw in the IANA Draft-5 proposal.

> 3. all mmbership organizations are subject to capture by small
> self-interested groups.

  First of all there is not such thing as always, all or never.  Second on it's
face,this statement suggests a paranoid attitude that is no grounded in reality or

fact based on absolutes.

> 4. the events in point 2 are a form of reverse capture, where a dissident
> group makes it appear that all ICANN members must be supporters of some
> specific policy, thereby leading to ICANN members who don't support the
> policy also leaving the organization. At that point a justfiable claim of
> capture could be made.

  Certainly this is possible, but not likely and easily overcome if the
leadershipis thoughtful and attending to minority groups or factions.

> 5. it costs money to run a membership organization and if that
> organization were to be run in the richest country in the world, you can
> expect that the costs for member services will be the highest they could
> possibly be. This creates a severe economic disincentive for people in
> less wealthy countries to become members

  THis is indeed a possible concern, but necessarily the case.  Many
membershipdriven organizations are very low cost from the point of running the
However in our proposal along with our non revocable perpetual blind trust
currently funded at $28m, there should be no problem in running a efficient and
effective membership organization.
See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm
for more information and detail.

> 6. The solution to point 5 is regional chapters like the ISOC has.
> However, such a membership structures makes the organizations even more
> complex and it will take a significant amount of time for such regional
> structures to be created.

  THis is of course possible but not necessarily the case.  As we pointed out in
earlierposts and suggestions to the IANA's comments section, we outlined just how
this can be avoided and incorporated in the Bylaws to prevent over utilizing
time in making decisions.  ANd again we would point you to our proposal,
See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm
for further detail.

> 7. when regional chapters are created, many people will be dismayed to
> find the same people organizing them who organized the regional ISOC
> chapters and they will claim that the membership has been captured by

  This is again a problem with poor forethought on the part of the ISOC
leadership.It is not necessarily endemic of membership organizations per se.

> I'd rather just see the ISOC accepted as a global membership organization
> and given some official standing within ICANN.

  This would be possible if indeed the ISOC can meet the requirements that thethe
Initial Individual Membership and the BOD determine are the criterion
for becoming an SO.

> Then all these membershiop
> battles can be fought in ISOC not in ICANN.

  Bad idea.  The ICANN is the place where these discussions need to bedetermined.

> And let's not forget the idea
> of a Users' council and an Industry council. They were rejected early on
> because it was felt that the three groups who needed to be deeply involved
> in administration activities were Protocols, Addresses and Names. However,
> that does not mean that we could not have a separate structure for Users
> and Industry to proovide both input and policy review without getting into
> the messy issues of voting and electing board members.

  The messy issue of voting for BOD members, as you put it is at the cruxof the
requienments of the White Paper.  And as such, it is necessary to
do so.

> For instance, if policies had to be published to a Users council and
> Industry council for review and comment before they were consideredby the
> board we would still have a level of openness and public accountability
> without having to create complicated international voting structures and
> membership structures.

  This would not provide for proper accountability from the
Stakeholders/users.Hence it is not in line with meeting the requirements of the
White Paper, nor the
needs of for protection of the Stakeholder/user community.  They should have an
equal voice in their own determination.

> For instance, the Users Council could consist of
> every person who registered their email address for a mailing list or some
> other type of electronic forum. I would suggest that such a mailing list
> should prevent any single person from posting more than one message per
> day to enable broad participation and to reduce the susceptability of the
> mailing list to capture by a special interest group.

  LOL!  Well this is pure nonsense for obvious reasons.  For instance, if thereare
subjects of interest that are being discussed or under consideration that number
more than one there may be a need or desire for more than one post by more than
one individual/Stakeholder.

> --
> Michael Dillon                 -               E-mail: michael@memra.com
> Check the website for my Internet World articles -  http://www.memra.com
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________


Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy