Benefits and goals of At-Large involvement

[DPF]

>What are the benefits and goals of At-Large involvement? 

Firstly we need to define benefits to whom.  For ICANN the benefits
are that it gains a large dose of credibility by having at large
members who elect some of the Board.  It lessens the possibility that
ISPs and others may decide not to recognise the ICANN/DOC root
servers.  It also lessens the likelihood of interference by
Governments and Parliaments around the world if ICANN is seen to not
be a closed elite but open to global participation and influence.

The at large membership also allows ICANN to be a creature of
progressive change, not merely defence of the status quo.  With no at
large membership it would face reduced pressure to make changes that
are desired by the Internet community.

One must also look at what would happen with no at large membership -
then all Board members would be appointed by bodies which are not
reflective of the wider Internet community.  In essence one has a form
of benevolent dictatorship.  How this worked well in the early days of
the Internet under men such as Jon Postel, but as ICANN now has to
deal with a far greater range of pressures, and as it moves more into
policy areas, this is not a model that would be sustainable.

>Please go beyond the "need for ICANN to represent the world's Internet users," and discuss specifics. 

One has too look at the areas ICANN is involved in and how it can
affect the world's Internet users.  Firstly ICANN can decide what TLDs
are made available.  It can also decide whether there will be
registrar competition in a particular TLD.  It indirectly affects the
prices of all gTLD domain name registrations.  It can redelegate a
ccTLD.  It can put in place policies allowing trademark owners to
pursue a low cost option of gaining cybersquatting domain names.  On
the other side it can take domain names away from Registrants.

All of the above affects individual Internet users profoundly.
Especially as they have no representation as of right in the DNSO
which is meant to recommend such policies.

The bylaws of ICANN give near supreme powers to the Board and it is by
having at large members able to elect and refuse to re-elect Directors
that internet users can have a direct input into the direction of
ICANN.  Already we have seen some Board members elected on a platform
of wanting change to ICANN and this is a healthy thing that internet
users who shared those views can have the chance of voting for a Board
member who does likewise.

>What would you, personally, like to gain from being involved in ICANN? 

I would firstly like to retain my existing rights of being able to
elect a member of the Board from my Region.  This is the most
important right.  If we compare this to a Government, it is more
important that people can vote for representatives than that they are
allowed to sign petitions or make submission to committees of
Parliament.

I would like the at large members to be able to have their
representatives communicate directly to them, to receive regular
communications  from their Board members and also to be able to easily
give feedback to their representatives.

I would also like the at large members such as myself to be able to
remove a Board member if enough of them feel the Board member is
acting in a manner against the best interests of the Internet
community.  The threshold for this should be fairly high.

I would also like to be able to vote for more than one Board members.
I believe that on top of the five Regional Board members elected at
large there should be four additional ones elected from the entire at
large population with a restriction of no more than one per country or
two per Region.

>In envisioning an At-Large membership, what do you see as its greatest potential contributions to ICANN? 

Credibility and representativeness.  ICANN's mission is to act in the
best interest of the Internet community.  This mission is much
enhanced if members of the community have a *direct* say in who
comprises the Board of ICANN.

>What are the negatives of having an At-Large Membership?

The major negative is potential rather than actual.  There is the
possibility of capture by charismatic leaders who are highly electable
but put their own interest against that of the Internet community.  

However this is a risk in every democratic organisation and it is
worth the risk.

There is also some risk in that nationalistic tendencies may come to
the fore as we saw to some degree with the campaigning for the first
Board elections.  However in reality ICANN does little on a national
level and as the reality of this sinks in the likelihood of this being
a problem recedes.

DPF