[ALSC-Forum] Splinter Groups

[Derek Conant]

I posted a similar message to the one below at the DNSO GA forum this
morning.  Having attended the ICANN At-Large Membership Study Committee
meeting in Stockholm this morning, I believe that the below statement is
relevant and constructive for this forum.

In my opinion, the best mechanism for advancing the development of
technology, policy and standards is one that includes many splinter
groups (SG).  SGs may provide the best mechanism for managing the large
quantity of comments, opinions and information contributed by
individuals and organizations willing to participate in advancing the
development of policy and standards.  How else is ICANN and its
Supporting Organizations (SOs) later going to manage and validate the
large quantities of comments, opinions and information contributed by
individuals and organizations willing to participate?

A qualified organization or group with its own constituencies and
consensus is able to assist in the management of information and
expedite the process of developing and contributing constructive opinion
derived from its constituencies efficiently onward to the decision
making bodies or governing bodies (ICANN and its SOs).  This also allows
the freedom for interested parties to flow from one organization or
group to the next which may sustain one's momentum and continuing
interest to participate in these processes.

A splinter group that is not productive, or one that does not produce
constructive results, simply will not have a significant impact on the
topics or matters at issue.

----
What may be ahead is a restructuring of ICANN's SOs and the development
of procedures and guidelines that give interested organizations with
working constituencies a process to follow for submission of their
constituencies' positions regarding topics or subject matter.

I imagine certain interested parties as individuals and workgroup SGs
participating as constituencies submitting their positions to an *ICANN
Approved Proposal Organization* (APO).  I see that said APO will weigh
the comments, opinions and information contributed by its SG
constituency members, and I can see that the APO will build its position
regarding topics and subject matter from the valid consensus derived
from its SG constituency members.

I then imagine that the APO will propose its positions based upon its SG
constituency members' consensus in a formal application and proposal to
ICANN SOs.  The ICANN SOs would then be responsible for reviewing and
weighing the merits of the APO's application and proposal.  The ICANN
SOs would then build its opinion upon consensus from the APO
applications and proposals and submit findings and information regarding
topics or subject matter to the ICANN Board for review.

In this model I imagine that ICANN Board Members and ICANN SO
representatives would eventually be elected by the APOs.  I also imagine
possibly hundreds of APOs and many ICANN SOs structurally placed to
manage APO proposals.

The ICANN Board may request the ICANN SOs to engage the advancement and
development of certain topics and subject matter, whereas, the APO's may
request the ICANN SOs to engage advancement and development of certain
topics and subject matter for ICANN Board review.  The process is open
and transparent and one can see how the ICANN SOs reached their
conclusions from the APO applications and proposals.  However, ICANN SOs
decide what the ICANN Board sees.

I believe that most everyone and every Country around the world wants
the Internet and emerging technologies to work for them and their
respective economy.  There should be no fear of allowing a process that
demands demonstrable and verifiable valid consensus and information to
lead here.  The model proposed reduces the threat of special interest
group penetration or undue influence taking over ICANN.  The
accountability mechanism in this model is in the demonstrable and
verifiable consensus and information proposed through the process, that
of which shows how ICANN receives its direction.

I believe that Mankind has not completed her/his process of learning how
to trust one another around the world.  International governance is
still maturing.  There does not appear to be any way to manage the real
threat of special interest group penetration or undue influence taking
over ICANN at this time if everyone's votes are counted.  Voters should
be qualified in this case and show that they know what is being
represented.  I believe that the APO concept allows for a showing and
validation of the APO's vote.  The APO is what votes.

Another thing with this concept is that it allows for APO individuals
and workgroup SGs to flow to and from other APOs which allows for
accountability and diversity as APOs compete with other APOs.

We have a long way to go and a short time to get there.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman