[ALSC-Forum] Fwd: role of At-Large - At-large Organizing Committee

[Esther Dyson]

FYI...

Esther

>To: reform-comments@icann.org
>From: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>
>Subject: role of At-Large - At-large Organizing Committee
>
>Dear Committee:
>
>I will not add an opinion concerning the overall structure of ICANN. There 
>are already too many points of view on that, and I believe I share the 
>majority view: Come up with something that most of the parties can 
>agree/compromise on, and all of us can live with it.  That structure 
>should meet the existing tests of representing a diversity of views and 
>interests, including geographic diversity, it should fulfill the various 
>other requirements of the MoU, and it should consist of members from the 
>private (non-government) sector.  ICANN should reach out to the ccTLDs not 
>by asking them to sign a contract of fealty to ICANN, but rather by asking 
>them to join ICANN in order to participate in setting a minimum level of 
>policies that they will agree to implement themselves.
>
>ICANN and its community (mostly) are trying very hard to limit their 
>efforts to the *non*-political issues of the Net's technical 
>infrastructure. It's inevitable that there is some overlap, but it need 
>not be great. The fact that ICANN has very limited powers and is not a 
>treaty organization helps to maintain that distinction, because ICANN 
>simply has no authority to meddle in/decide the non-technical issues.
>
>Hence the big discussions about ICANN's supposed  "mission creep." As long 
>as ICANN keeps to its by-consensus, by-contract architecture, that mission 
>creep is almost impossible.  But the moment it became part of, say, the 
>ITU (or remained with the USG), it *would* have such authority/powers and 
>would inevitably be drawn into conflicts it should avoid.
>
>Those conflicts won't go away, and perhaps those issues do belong with the 
>ITU.  But ICANN's current formulation will help it to stay clear of them.
>
>THE AT-LARGE MEMBERSHIP
>
>Leaving that aside, I'd like to discuss the role of an At-Large 
>Membership, which I believe is key to ICANN's perceived legitimacy and to 
>its actual success as a body that can fairly serve the broad public 
>interest (including the private interests of corporations and 
>individuals).  I include by reference the At-Large Study Committee's 
>study, which I hope will guide you as you consider the place and purpose 
>of the At-large Membership.
>
>Nonetheless, I'd like to add a few more urgent, practical points.  Even 
>before the Committee/Board/Community come up with a new improved structure 
>for ICANN, it is possible to make progress on the At-Large Membership. And 
>whatever form the ALM ultimately takes, it is clear that ICANN needs one, 
>for both substantive and political reasons.
>
>Therefore:
>
>1 - Please support the creation of an At-Large Organizing Committee *now*, 
>to carry on the work begun by the ALSC, and to keep its Forum mailing list 
>open.  I have managed to raise some funding for this committee ($22,500 so 
>far), and I'm sure more will be forthcoming the moment the ALOC gets any 
>kind of formal blessing and a staffer is hired using these funds.  (All 
>contributions welcome!)
>
>The board has already blessed it in principle by calling on the ICANN 
>staff to move forward on ALM "with energy and enthusiasm."  There is no 
>need for further formal process; the staff simply  has to move to make it 
>happen.  The Reform committee could help to move this along, and show that 
>ICANN *can* act with dispatch if problems of funding and the like are 
>resolved!
>
>
>2 - Please support the activities of the ALOC as a meaningful step towards 
>a useful, constructive At-Large Membership.  Right now the various people 
>who are, consider themselves to be or would like to be At-Large Members 
>are mostly un-organized, mostly cynical and distrustful, and frustrated 
>that they cannot be heard.  One  could say that they should get better 
>organized, act more constructively, etc., even as *they* say that the 
>Board and staff should listen more attentively, reach out to them, etc. 
>etc.  The ALOC is a solid step towards *resolving* these complaints rather 
>than escalating the frustration on both sides.  The ALOC should be in 
>charge of *listening* to potential At-Large Members and organizations, as 
>well as reaching out to them. The ALSC assembled a substantial body of 
>commentary, names and other data during its work that can now be leveraged 
>for the next phase.
>
>The ALOC should foster efforts of AL Members to organize themselves and 
>participate in ICANN's decision-making constructively, with a focus not 
>just on ICANN's own governance, but on actual policies such as domain-name 
>transfer practices, WhoIs data policies and the like.  This kind of public 
>input on substantive matters will go a long way to answering governments' 
>and others' concerns that ICANN should not be a provider-only or 
>trade-union style organization.
>
>The ALOC should also work *with* the ICANN staff and board and its other 
>stakeholders to figure out a way for the Membership, once it is 
>participating actively and constructively, to select a number of board 
>members, with elections as the ultimate goal.
>
>Esther Dyson
>former member, At-Large Study Committee
>former chairman, ICANN Board
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@edventure.com
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

The conversation continues..... at
http://www.edventure.com/conversation/