[ALSC-Forum] Internet Community Involvement in ICANN

[DPF]

Below are my responses to the 2nd set of topics posed by the
committee.  Feedback as always welcome.

DPF

>To what degree should the general Internet community be involved 
>in ICANN? 

The Internet Community should have involvement in the following ways:
(a) Ability to be notified of upcoming issues
(b) Ability to submit views on said issues
(c) Ability to indicatively (not binding) vote on said issues
(d) Ability to ask questions and receives answers from ICANN
Representatives and staff (within reason)
(e) Ability to elect half or more of the Board to ensure it is
accountable to the Internet community

>Should individual users simply share their views with ICANN's Board 
>via emails and on-line forums? 

This should remain but more effort than this needs to happen.  At
Large Directors especially should make specific outreach efforts to
inform and communicate with their local communities.  Directors should
be funded so that they can travel within the Region they represent and
attend or even help organise forums on important issues.

There is some parallel between an at large Director and a Member of
Parliament (not in all regards but in terms of policy setting).  Like
MPs, at large Directors should hold constituency clinics where they
can liaise with the community they represent.

Accountability is about more than just holding an election.

>Should individual users be involved in some formally structured, 
>systematic way in ICANN's decision-making process? 

The key involvement must be retaining the ability to elect half or
more of the Board.   If one allows for participation but not for the
ability to elect representatives then the comparison is bets made to
Apartheid era South Africa when sections of the community were
consulted but had no power.

I believe those users who register their interest in ICANN form an
electorate not just for Board elections but a living community that
can be consulted regularly.  There could be a tick box if users wish
to be part of this when they register to vote.

For certain major issues I would even suggest that the at large
membership can be polled as a guide of Directors.  It is important
that while Directors should be independent of their "electorates" (as
Burke declares you owe them your judgement) that they have the ability
to ascertain the views of their electorate.

There should not just be straight multi choice polls though but also
regular surveys of user opinion on more complex issues where comments
are welcome.  There would obviously be resource issues with staff to
summarise this but some can be automated.

>Should they be encouraged to form platforms, constituencies or parties 
>representing particular points of view (instead of the regional focus 
>of past elections)? 

Political Parties can be best viewed as a necessary evil.  In a
perfect world groups of people would make decisions in isolation based
purely on the facts before them.  But it doesn't work like that.

Parties or groupings allow major progress to be made on issues - it
brings like minded individuals together and allows them to form a
common platform they can agree on in the hope of advancing their
common views.

I am not sure ICANN should go out of its way to encourage parties or
groupings but neither should it discourage what will be an inevitable
trend.  Such identifications can also be very useful to voters to
quickly ascertain which candidates are most likely to represent their
views.

Such groupings can also form effective communication channels and
allow more people to be involved in policy deliberations.

I believe the nine at large seats should be five regional seats (one
each) and four global at large seats (whole world votes).  There will
still be a restriction of one Director per country and say no more
than three per Region.

>Or should individual users' involvement be limited to electing 
>At-Large Directors? 

No.  The technology of the Internet allows us to involve individual
users far better than an election every two or three years, Details as
above.

>There are countless other ways to involve users and for them to 
>play a role in ICANN decision-making.. which ones do you think 
>is are best, and why? 

I think the ALSC should ensure that any other methods of involving
users in ICANN decision making are complementary to the at large
elections, not a substitute for it.  This is crucial.  The elections
of half or more of the Board are the foundation blocks for the rest of
the user involvement.

DPF