[ALSC-Forum] Feedback on Draft Report

[David Farrar]

My feedback is in two sections.  General comments are made here and specific 
comments on parts of the report are below after the appropriate quotes.

Where there is merit in separate parts of the report, taken together the report 
is IMO a huge step backwards.  It:

1) reduces the number of at large board seats from nine to six with absolutely 
no reasoning for this fundamental change
2) Restricts eligibility to be an at large member
3) Introduces fees to become an at large member

The introduction of fees to vote (on top of any domain name fee already paid) 
has the potential to reduce at large membership from 70,000 or so to a a few 
hundred.  

The combination of the three points above weakens the role of individual 
internet users massively and IMO is not a minor but fundamental shift in the 
founding principles of ICANN.

Having said that I am not a relentless defender of the statsu quo and below 
will comment in detail on aspects.

> 		We found there to be great value in ICANN's existing
> bottom-up approach and in the involvement of At-Large members to
> strengthen the focus on Internet users' interests. However, we do not
> accept the notion that users' interests are somehow exclusively or even
> best protected by selecting half of the Board's Directors. 

This is a sweeping statement which unfortunately has little supporting 
evidence.  if the ALSC wishes to convince people that their proposal will 
better protect users' interests, tell us how.  I agree having half the Board 
elected by itself is no guarantee of protection but IMO it is a hell of a lot 
better than only having one third of the Board elected by users.

> Nor do we
> believe that users' interests can be properly represented through a
> system that relies on e-mail addresses to identify individuals; such an
> approach is administratively and financially unworkable on a global
> scale for a sizeable electorate, and fraught with potential dangers
> ranging from capture to outright fraud. 

Capture and fraud are different matters.  I agree e-mail address by itself is 
open to fraud.  However the necessity to also provide a workable postal address 
takes care of almost all fraud issues assuming the elector database can detect 
postal duplicate addresses.

Capyuer was a concern with some voting for nationalistic reasons.  However one 
should be wary of deciding on behalf of people what are good ro bad reasons for 
voting and disenfrahcnising tens of thousands of internet users for this reason.

> Furthermore, experience has
> already shown that it is costly and difficult to manage and does not
> effectively handle many people in regions that use non-Latin script or
> have inefficient postal systems. 

Agreed.

> 		Instead, we have found the requirement that members hold
> a domain name to be a useful way of identifying individuals, reaching
> them (initially) in a decentralized way through registrars and ensuring
> their direct interest in the Internet infrastructure that is ICANN's
> central concern. (Any e-mail address holder can acquire a domain name at
> minimal cost, but with some effort. To help ensure that this is not an
> impediment to those who want a domain name and want to be an At-Large
> member, the ALSC suggests that the ICANN community identify and
> encourage organizations that could provide appropriate assistance to
> such users.)

The requirement to hold a domain name is sensible if ICANN only dealt with 
domain name issues.  But protocol and addressing issues affect every user.  For 
that matter all internet users use the domain name system also and have a stake 
in having it run well.  If the DNS is broke then your e-mail is also broke.

Getting a domain name is not trivial always and iif ICANN goes down this path 
there should be an easy way for people to get a domain name as part of becoming 
an at large member.

Registering and hosting a domain name mail record can cost NZ$150 a year.  That 
is not a trivial amount of money.
 
> 		We believe the approach with the best chance for
> consensus support is addressing Internet users' interests by organizing
> ICANN along stakeholder interest or functional lines of developers,
> providers and users

So where would the Business and IP Communities fit in?  

, by defining At-Large members as "individual domain
> name holders" (since they have a strong and tangible vested interest in
> ICANN activities, not just the Internet in general), and by providing
> these At-Large members with the opportunity to fully participate in
> ICANN and select one-third of its Board. Obviously, this is only one of
> many possible approaches; we endeavored to find one that could win broad
> support. We propose the At-Large user "community" include institutions,
> but only individuals may vote. Institutions already play a greater role
> in the existing Supporting Organizations, so this seems an appropriate
> balance. We encourage your input on this issue. 

Would it be a correct assumption then that this would see the Business, IP and 
Non-commercial constituencies removed from the DNSO and they would join the At 
Large SO.  However they would not gets organisational votes but only votes for 
those who participate as individuals.

WOuld there be any restriction on a firm paying all its staff to be members of 
an at large SO and getting them all a domain name?  This could happen in the 
old system but the liekly voting electorate is going to drop from 70,000 to 500 
or so one or two firms could swamp the so called individual users's area.

> 		To launch the ALSO membership, we recommend that ICANN
> undertake an outreach effort and that organizers work with the
> registrars to use the domain name registration infrastructure to notify
> current and future individual domain name holders and give them an
> opportunity to join and financially support a new ALSO. 

This is crucial if you go down this path.  We are in fact planning a similiar 
thing locvally within dot nz - promote membership of the policy body 
(InternetNZ) through Registrars.

> 		We recommend that the ALSO framework and elections be
> based on six geographic regions, 

Can the ALSC provide statistics on population and internet use under their 
proposed six Regions compared to the existing five.  I am not against a sixth 
region but the ALSC needs to justify its recommendations and one way to do this 
is provide the evidence that this would be a fairer distribution.

> and that guidelines be established to
> foster an ALSO that can develop and present policy advice to the Board
> on issues that affect Internet users' interests and that are within
> ICANN's specific technical and administrative mission. (Careful
> attention to ICANN's constrained mission should render it less
> attractive as a vehicle to "capture" and make sure that the public does
> not expect ICANN to remedy problems or solve disputes not within its
> narrow competence.)

This is a funadmental change to the structure of ICANN.  Well more so in theory 
than reality but still important.  The current structure is that generally an 
issue is dealt with entirely within an SO and once there is conseus sthere the 
Board ratifies that consensus.

This will formalise that on most issues the Board will receive quite contrary 
policies from different SOs and pick and choose which one they happen to 
prefer.  Where is the incentive to seek consensus - it all becomes a numbers 
game on the Board.

> 		We think a consensus can form that an ALSO's organized
> participation mechanisms and election processes will fulfill the mission
> of involving individuals and representing their interests in ICANN's
> policy development and decision-making structure and processes.

I do generally like the idea of at large members having a role between voting 
once every three years or so.  One really needs to clear up though whether the 
DNSO will remain the focus of domain name policy because if this is the case 
there is still a need for a registrants constituency within the DNSO.

> 		We have concluded that no system exists for
> incorporating an "At-Large" membership that would fully satisfy all
> interests, because this is a world of limited resources in which
> compromises must be made and priorities set in all spheres of activity.
> We also recognize that our recommended approach is not foolproof (i.e.
> vulnerability to capture of a geographic region would still exist.) We
> believe, however, that this is the most balanced, reasonable approach
> currently available, and that we are outlining a system that is
> generally fair and that involves those individuals who have an active
> interest in ICANN's activities. It focuses At-Large membership on an
> identifiable and vested community, provides a reasonable mechanism for
> registration and self-funding, 

I beleive the notion of an ALSO being self funding is naive at best and 
dangerous at worse.  It also ignores that registrants/name holders already fund 
90% of ICANN through their registration fees.

An ALSO will cost minimum US$200,000 to run for it to match the resources of 
say the DNSO.  It may be more because individual have fewer donated resources 
than businesses.  Now if one can convince 500 peopleto cough up a membership 
fee that is US$400 per member.  Yu won't even get 500 members.

I beleive it is not unfair to have some minimal contribution to show some 
committment.  Somewhere in the region of US$5.

If you try to make the proposed ALSO self funding it will be still-born.


I hope this initial feedback is useful


DPF