|
Summary
ALSC Working Meeting
New York, May 5-6
Attendees: Carl Bildt (Chair), Chuck Costello (Vice Chair),
Pierre Dandjinou (via conference call for a few hours each day), Esther
Dyson (for part of the meeting), Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu, Thomas
Niles, Oscar Robles, Pindar Wong (Vice Chair), and Denise Michel,
Executive Director.
- Issues -- Members had an in-depth discussion on a wide range of At-Large
(AL) issues and explored whether they could resolve any pending issues at
this point. A range of options were examined for involving individual users
in ICANN -- from providing input through the existing ICANN structure, to creating
a new At-Large structure -- from electing all Directors via the AL, to
electing none. It was determined that more input is needed. Issues
discussed included:
- What a majority of interested individuals would like to gain from being
involved in ICANN.
- The potential contributions AL would make to ICANN.
- The potential negative aspects of AL membership.
- If membership were to be open to literally anyone with access to the Internet,
what might be the positive and negative repercussions?
- What processes and procedures should be used to create that At Large membership?
- What are individuals' rights as Internet users and how are those rights
protected through AL membership, and representation schemes for those who
are AL members?
- What involvement would they have in the Internet domain names, numbers and
protocol identifier system decisions?
- Should AL membership simply involve sharing their views with ICANN's Board
via emails and on-line forums?
- Should individual users be involved in some formally structured, systematic
way in ICANN's decision-making process?
- Should they be encouraged to form platforms, constituencies or parties representing
particular points of view (instead of the regional focus of past elections)?
- Or should individual users' involvement be limited to electing At-Large
Directors?
- Should membership come with some responsibilities, such as knowledge of
ICANN's mission, or participation in discussions and decision-making, or voting
for representatives?
- How should an At-Large membership be funded?
- Would a membership fee prevent or discourage participation of users in developing
countries?
- Would they encourage only the committed and informed to participate?
- Should membership fees be scaled in some way?
- Should there be some kind of separate At-Large representation within ICANN?
- Should At-Large Director seats be eliminated and individual involvement
and representation addressed through the existing ICANN structure?
- Should a country or region-level or other kind of structure be created to
facilitate user involvement?
- Should ICANN's Supporting Organizations be changed to accommodate At-Large
Member participation?
- Is an "At-Large membership Supporting Organization" needed?
- Should At-Large Members elect Directors to the ICANN Board?
- If so, how many, and how should it be done?
- What lessons have been learned from ICANN's existing At-Large process and
structures (direct election of At-Large Directors, etc)?
- How effectively are individuals currently communicating their views to ICANN?
- What are appropriate mechanisms for input by individual Internet users throughout
the world into ICANN?
- Process -- Members considered how the ALSC should "substantively"
address its charter. They plan to consider proposed positions on a progression
of issues in working towards a final set of recommendations.
- Procedures -- Members considered ground rules for reaching internal
agreement. For internal consensus, ALSC will aim for full agreement, and attach
dissenting views if necessary.
- DNSO Review Briefing -- Members were briefed on the DNSO's efforts
to achieve more effective participation in policy development. Consideration
of "user groups" participation in the DNSO parallels in some ways
the work of the ALSC. Two DNSO workgroups will produce reports for discussion
in Stockholm; practical alternatives will be considered and a "rough
consensus" is expected to be reached in Montevideo. The ALSC will stay
in close touch with the DNSO on these efforts. It was noted that it would
be ideal if the DNSO reached an early conclusion on voting and policy development
(proposed structures) so this could be factored into the ALSC's work.
- Schedule -- The ALSC agreed to the following schedule (objectives
and agenda for each event will be forthcoming).
- May 5, 6 Working Meeting
- June 3, 4 Working Meeting
- June 5 Outreach Meeting, Stockholm
- August 13 Outreach Meeting, Silicon Valley (USA)
- September 6 Outreach Meeting, Montevideo
- September 7, 8 Working Meeting
- By September 14 Issue Draft Report
- By November 14 Submit Final Report
- Potential additional Working Meeting may be added
- Email announce lists, on-line forum and website will be primary vehicles
for input and distribution of ALSC materials
|
