[ALSC-Forum] Three points of disagreement

[Alexander Svensson]

Dear all,

I don't think the two reports are /that/ far away
from each other as Joe Sims tries to make us believe.

NAIS sees At Large as the public interest and
therefore an all-embracing concern, ALSC sees At Large
as 'individual users' and therefore only one stakeholder
group among others. On the other hand, both respect
the other perspective: NAIS doesn't call for an
election of all Board seats by the At Large (which
would make sense if the At Large was seen as only
legitimate interest), and ALSC acknowledges the need
for a public voice.

I think we are down to three main practical problems:
1. Costs and fees
2. Membership and domain ownership
3. 50% vs. 31.6% of Board seats


1. Costs and fees

ALSC explicitly proposes a membership fee and hopes to
reduce the costs by using an election mechanism which
does not require snail mail postage.
NAIS doesn't like membership fees and argues that the
collection expenses are too high, but does not seem
to be adamantly opposed ("it appears that greater
experience may resolve some of these issues and the ALM
should continue to monitor possibilities for equitable
collection of fees"). NAIS sees the snail mail postage
costs as necessary.
With a decentralized collection system (like or unlike
my Registration Point approach),
  http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00772.shtml
the postage costs can be carried by the applicant,
the election can be done on an online basis and the
collection expenses for a (reasonable!) membership fee
will be drastically reduced by local collection and bulk
transfer to ALSO.


2. Membership and domain ownership

ALSC proposes a domain name based approach, NAIS views
it critically. Joe Sims lists pro and cons and adds
another possibility: "simply invite all who are willing
to pay a nominal fee -- just enough to ensure some level of
actual interest -- to become ICANN "members" and then
to select (perhaps by vote) the appropriate number
of ICANN directors." I think this is much preferable
to a restriction to domain holders, and have argued
in another mail that the perceived benefits of such
a restriction are in fact smaller than the ALSC draft
report states.


3. 50% vs. 31.6% of Board seats

This is probably the most contentious issue, since it
is also a battle for a symbol. Joe Sims is mistaken
when he asks whether NAIS would be happy with "having
one-third of ICANN's directors come from the public
(as the ALSC recommends)": 1/3 would be six of
eighteen. Since the CEO is elected by a majority vote
and is ex officio member of the Board, it is six of
nineteen and thereby less than 1/3. This is especially
important since bylaw changes require a 2/3 majority.

Even if national capture should take place in all
electoral regions, it seems unlikely that the At Large
directors share all opinions. In fact, the current
At Large directors differ considerably. But if all user-
elected At Large directors agree that a change of bylaws
(!) is undesirable, it should not be taken lightly --
under the ALSC proposal and even with 1/3, all At Large
directors could be outvoted even in such an important
question.

The ALSC skilfully argues that there is no consensus
support for 1/2 Board seats for the At Large, even though
it is well aware that there is certainly no consensus
support for 6/19 Board seats. The distinction between
providers, developers and users is fine in theory, and
they truly are three perspectives, but in reality, many
developers are employed by providers. Some blocking
minority mechanism has to be applied and/or the At Large
proportion has to be greater than 1/3.

Best regards,
/// Alexander