[ALSC-Forum] final draft commentary

[Stephen Waters]

"Despite extensive efforts, the ALSC has found it difficult to generate
a high degree of interest in these issues. We have not found profound
and widespread opinions favoring any one solution to the At-Large
issues."

1. The overall Internet community simply does not trust ICANN. Whether
over concerns about ICANN rubber-stamping corporate wishes or
US-centricity or other reasons, I've noted few who thought ICANN would
honor At-Large member wishes. While I tend to be an optimistic person,
I've started to become skeptical myself.

2. Having a bunch of overseas meetings does not generate interest.
Putting up a domain called atlargestudy.org with a couple press releases
does not generate interest. You need to get press coverage on Slashdot,
CNN, C|NET, MSNBC, Kuro5hin, PBS, NPR, etc. 

"Based on our view of ICANN as a balance among developers, providers and
users, we would recommend that the At-Large membership select a third of
ICANN's Board. We have found that more narrow interests could seek to
influence the ICANN process through all three avenues, but that wider
and more public interests can also be found in all three."

3. Horse hockey. Why should collections of individuals have any more
voice on the Board than single individuals? Expertise? Bah. The public
ought to be able to elect leaders who serve the public's interests.
Those members of the Board could then consult with the experts as their
Cabinet. But simply because some organizations happened to be dubbed by
good old Uncle Sam to be in charge is no reason for them to continue to
have dominance in a worldwide system.

A cabinet or panel is the place for experts. Lobbies, for other
interested parties (registrars, etc.). Not the Board.

4. Lowering the amount of At-Large influence on elections just furthers
my point in [1]. Do you want participation or not? Do you want our trust
or not?

"We have thus decided to recommend a system with voting rights based on
domain names"

5. See Slashdot commentary on this issue, in particular how this process
could politically hamstring the movement against artificially scarce
gTLDs. Auerbach's views on gTLDs are one reason why I voted for him:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/30/1647243

6. I do not own a domain name. I do not want to obtain a domain simply
to participate in a process that is supposed to be representing _users_.
After seeing other people's experiences with registrars, I'm extremely
hesitant to go through all of that trouble just to register
stupid_icann_registration_crap.org which I would never use because I
cannot afford to have my domain hosted anywhere.

7. If ICANN still wishes to require a domain in light of [6], they
should recognize alternative roots as valid places to get domain names.

8. Requiring domains will mean ICANN is deliberately contributing to
sub-TLD bloat. At the very least, they should encourage At-Large members
to use a new TLD, like .also or something.

"building a system expected to process 5,000 registrations
...
143,806 valid registrations were received, of which 76,183 were
validated, and 34,035 voted in this election; the cause of the 50% to
45% declines is unclear, but certainly raises questions about the
process.
...
34,035 people voted, which is approximately 1/100ths of a percent of
projected potential electorate, raising questions of whether the
election met the popular democratic standards upon which it was based"

9. Well, geez, ICANN didn't bother to implement a robust enough system
for the elections and At Large Committee is now wondering why people are
disgruntled or disinterested in the process and didn't bother to vote?
It seems pretty clear to me that the lousy process caused at least half
the problem.

10. Well, my rant is through. Succinctly:
a. The Board should be At-Large elected only, regardless of the
technical difficulty. They most certainly should not have a reduced
voice on the Board.
b. Users should not have to own a domain to participate.
c. Questions about the legitimacy of the vote are a smaller concern
than the power of the entrenched interests on the Board.

Thanks for reading this.
Stephen Waters
Austin, TX