Re: [ALSC-Forum] Feedback on Draft Report

[desertbobp]

Where is the Draft Report?  I've been unable to locate it on the ALSC web
site.

Bob Palm
Adjunct Instructor - Glendale Community College

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Farrar" <david@farrar.com>
To: <forum@atlargestudy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 3:37 PM
Subject: [ALSC-Forum] Feedback on Draft Report


>
> 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
>
>
>