[ALSC-Forum] Proposed ALSC Board resolution

[Donald Simon]

The following statement is submitted on behalf of the NGO and Academic ICANN
Study (NAIS) regarding the ALSC's proposed draft resolution:


Statement of the NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS)
on the ALSC’s Proposed Action Statement.

	We appreciate the effort of the ALSC to find consensus principles
relating to the future of the At Large Membership that the Board can adopt
at the Los Angeles meeting.  As we have said many times before, we believe
that there are several important points of consensus between the ALSC report
and the NAIS report.  It would be useful for the Board to formally
acknowledge these consensus principles in order to form a floor for future
debates on the final shape and scope of the At Large.

	We start with two procedural points.  First, it would be better for
the community to have the ALSC final report prior to commenting on language
in a proposed board resolution.  The strength of the arguments to be
presented in the final report is relevant to the principles stated in the
ALSC’s draft resolution.

	Second, while we support an ongoing role for the ALSC until a final
decision on theAt Large Membership is made at the Ghana meeting, we are
skeptical of the draft resolution’s call for the ICANN staff to explore the
level of community interest in regional At Large structures.  This appears
to position the proposed ALSO as simply a traditional supporting
organization, or even a DNSO constituency, both of which are not appropriate
models for the structure of the At Large Membership.

	As to the merits of the ALSC draft, we agree with many of the
principles stated by the ALSC:

	We strongly agree with the first principle that Internet users have
a “significant stake” in ICANN’s activities and should have the opportunity
of “fully participating” in ICANN.  Indeed, this conclusion forms the basis
for our own report and recommendations.

	We also agree with the thrust of the three additional statements of
principle - 

·   	-- that there should be a framework for informed participation by At
Large members (although we need additional specific information about how
the ALSC  proposes to structure and implement its call for an ALSO.  For
comparison, see the very specific recommendations made in sections 3.4 and 4
of the NAIS report), 

·	-- that there should be an “identifiable and vested” community to
comprise the electorate, and 

·	-- that there should be a “proportionate” role for the At Large to
select board members.

	However, we strongly disagree with the language in the proposed
board resolution that refers to two specific recommendations in the ALSC
report - that the At Large electorate be limited to domain name holders, and
that the At Large should elect only six members of the ICANN board. 

	While it may be that the ALSC intends these references to be for
purposes of illustration only, the wording in the resolution is very
susceptible to mis-reading and interpretive abuse.  We fear that if the
board in Los Angeles adopts this resolution as written, we will hear people
say in Ghana that the board has already "decided" to limit the ALSO
electorate to domain name holders and the number of At Large seats to six.  

There is no reason for the ALSC to insist on stating, even as illustrations,
its own specific recommendations in a resolution intended to achieve broad
consensus on several important, general principles.  The resolution will be
much, much more acceptable if the ALSC deletes the specific references to
the particular ALSC positions that are, in our view, very much in
controversy.

If the ALSC wants to include language that illustrates the general
principles, you should include more than just the ALSC’s own recommendations
as examples.  For instance, you could make your point by including
references to NAIS positions as well, again for illustrative purposes only.


In other words, we believe there is consensus in support of the principle of
"proportionate" representation for the At Large, but that principle could be
implemented by either 6 seats as the ALSC recommends or 9 seats as NAIS
recommends (or some other number).  If you include a reference only to the
ALSC recommendation, it makes the resolution appear to be a Trojan Horse
attempt to pre-judge a controversial point of specific implementation in the
guise of a general principle.  

This is undoubtedly not the intent of the ALSC.  But the language as written
can be read and perhaps used that way by others, and it undermines the
ALSC’s effort to have the board adopt important consensus principles.


Donald J. Simon
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry
1250 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC  20005
Telephone:  (202) 682-0240
Facsimile:  (202) 682-0249



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *   N O T I C E    * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.  If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified
that any use, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us by
reply e-mail or by telephone (call us collect at (202) 682-0240) and
immediately delete this message and any and all of its attachments.