Re: [ALSC-Forum] a proposed action statement

[DPF]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:50:15 -0700, "Denise Michel"
<dmichel@atlargestudy.org> wrote:

>The ALSC would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the following draft
>statement proposed for ICANN consideration.  

>(1) The Board affirms that individual Internet users have a significant
>stake in ICANN's activities and should have the opportunity of fully
>participating in ICANN.

Absolutely.  I note there is no restriction on what sort of users.

>(2) While the ALSC's final report remains open for comment and
>consideration, the Board acknowledges that the following basic principles
>should guide expedited action on At-Large:
>
>(a) Create an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO) as a regionally-based
>framework for informed participation of any interested individual and for
>At-Large involvement in ICANN policy and decision-making (including
>mechanisms to foster discussion among individuals and with ICANN's
>decision-making bodies);

I support this.  I think a movement away from at large members having
no input except electing a board members every few years towards a
system where at large members can be involved in discussions, decision
making and policy is good.  The concept of regionally based is also
sensible but not essential.

>(b) Focus At-Large membership on an identifiable and vested community (an
>ALSO electorate) to provide a practical mechanism for voter registration and
>self-funding (e.g. The ALSC recommends that membership be based on
>individual domain name holders);

I won't die in a ditch for this but I really can't see that one gains
any extra confidence in the authenticity of at large members by
restricting it to domain name holders.  It excludes 95% of internet
users and doesn't at all stop fraudulent registrations.  Excluding 95%
of your eligible membership in order to deal with what may be a 0.1%
fraud problem does not seem sensible.

Also beyond doubt an enterprising ccTLD registry will offer free
domain names to people (probably linked to accepting opt in
advertising) wishing to be ICANN members so that anyone who wishes to
be a member will still get to be one so nothing is gained except
artificial barriers.

What I would die in a ditch over though (well at least partially drown
myself in) is the requirement to be self funding.  This could doom the
ALSO.  I support some level of fee to reduce fraud and make a
contribution towards costs.  Say US$5.  But self funding could require
membership fees of US$100 or greater and the ALSO would become nothing
more than business lobby group as individuals without commercial links
would be most reluctant to pay that sort of money.

A self funding requirement could reduce at large membership from
70,000 odd to 500 or less.  This would be a shame to say the least.

>(c) Provide a proportionate role for At-Large members in selecting ICANN's
>Board (along with other ICANN constituencies) (e.g. The ALSC recommends 6
>At-Large Directors in a 19 member Board).

I am dismayed this is still being recommended.  In this forum (the
most open to all vehicle the ALSC has) there is nothing within a light
year of a consensus that the AL Directors be reduced from nine to six.
In fact not only is there not a consensus but there is not even
significant majority or even significant minority support for this. 

If the ALSC wishes push this reduction, then they must clearly
document where this consensus exists for a reduction.  If they do not
then they should clearly identify that this is not a consensus opinion
but their private view.

It is disappointing that despite numerous invitations not a single
member of the ALSC has replied in this forum on where this consensus
they claim to have, comes from.

I would ask the ALSC to consider the possibility that their entire
report may be rejected and all their time and effort wasted if they
are determined to keep this reduction in with no identifiable support
for it.  It would be a pity to have all the good work they have done
thrown out also but if you leave this recommendation in a number of
people will feel obliged to lobby day and night for the report to be
rejected.

>(3) The Board requests that the ICANN CEO solicit expressions of interest to
>determine the degree of interest in creating local and regional ALSO
>entities that would support informed participation of interested individuals
>and At-Large involvement in ICANN, and report the results to the Board at
>the March 2002 ICANN meeting.

Fine.

>(4) The Board authorizes the extension of the ALSC until March 31, 2002 to
>work with the Supporting Organizations, other interested parties, and ICANN
>staff on proposing detailed plans for an At-Large membership, voter
>registration, and a regionally-based, self-supporting ALSO.

Fine except it would be nice to include at large members in the list
rather than merely let them be covered under "other interested
parties"considering they are the people who are most affected by this.

I hope the Committee finds the feedback useful and I sincerely hope
they especially reconsider the self funding issue and the number of
directors.  With compromise on these issues it would be possible for
me to support rather than oppose the report which is something I would
rather do.


DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527