Announce List Email
****************************************************************
Meeting notice: At -Large Study Committee outreach meeting
Date: Monday, August 13
Time: 16:00 to 20:00 p.m.
Place: VeriSign conference center - 487 East Middlefield Road,
Mountain View, CA
Sign-up: www.atlargestudy.org
All interested individuals are welcome and encouraged to participate.
Please sign-up in advance on our website to help with
seating/refreshment plans. If you are unable to attend, please send
your thoughts/questions to us in an email via our on-line forum at
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml or send them to
comments@atlargestudy.org . Next scheduled ALSC Outreach Meeting will
be on September 7 in Montevideo, Uruguay, at the Radisson Hotel, from
10:00 - 12:00 and 17:00 - 19:00.
****************************************************************
You are receiving this message because you signed-up for the ALSC
"announce" list.
The August 13 ALSC outreach meeting will focus on how to implement our
goal of At-Large (individuals, public interest organizations, etc.)
representation and participation in ICANN. The ALC has issued two
documents that will serve as a basis for our meeting: a "Discussion
Paper #1," (included below) outlining the ALSC's initial thoughts and
soliciting input, and an "option" template posted on our website
http://www.atlargestudy.org/template.shtml ) for your use in commenting
on and formulating specific ideas on "how" ICANN might involve "At-
Large members." The meeting will feature a panel moderated by Dan
Gillmor, Technology Columnist, San Jose Mercury News, to facilitate
audience discussion, and will include all members of the ALSC.
Additional information is available on our website at
www.atlargestudy.org.
All interested individuals are encouraged to participate in this
meeting. If you are unable to be there in person, please send your
thoughts/questions to us in an email via our on-line forum at
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml or send them to
comments@atlargestudy.org .
We look forward to hearing from you!
The At-Large Study Committee:
Carl Bildt (Chair), Chuck Costello (Vice Chair), Pierre Dandjinou,
Esther Dyson, Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu, Thomas Niles, Oscar Robles,
and Pindar Wong (Vice Chair).
****************************************************************
At-Large Membership Study Committee Discussion Paper #1
July 12, 2001
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
practice, there is."
Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut
Introduction
Over the last two and a half years, ICANN has made considerable
progress towards achieving the objectives for which it was formed,
including providing coordinated advice on technical management of the
DNS and IP addresses, launching a process for implementing new TLDs,
and supporting the creation of new regional internet registries.
However, there is concern by some that ICANN still lacks the perceived
legitimacy and accountability to a broad public that will enable it to
operate effectively and flexibly as the Internet scales up and as
ICANN's policies affect an ever broader and less technically oriented
Internet community.
In order to help fulfill ICANN's promise of accountability, the ICANN
Board created the At-Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC) earlier
this year to conduct a complete review of the At-Large (individual
Internet user) membership concept and its structure and processes, and
to "achieve a broad consensus on effective means by which the diverse
global Internet communities and individual stakeholders may participate
in ICANN's policy development, deliberations, and actions."[1] (See
Appendix A, "Brief Background")
Purpose
We need to keep in mind that ICANN is a very young international entity
that faces both high expectations and operational challenges as one of
the world's most unusual "Internet start-ups."
Over the last several months, in order to understand ICANN and its
structure and processes, the ALSC has read through the volumes of
publicly available discussions and material surrounding its history,
form and function, and its controversy. We also have reviewed numerous
emailed views and participated in several face-to-face discussions (in
our "outreach" events and in individual meetings), and listened to
those of you who have shared your thoughts and views on how we might
address our task and provided feedback on the questions we have asked.
While we will continue to listen to everyone's input, work with other
related review efforts, and keep an open mind, it is now time for us to
begin to formulate and share our own thoughts with the goal of
encouraging more specific feedback. That is the purpose of this
Discussion Paper and the specific concept papers we will shortly post.
Your Input is Needed
We have received clear indications that, as part of our efforts to
achieve a consensus on how the various Internet communities and
stakeholders should be involved in ICANN, our recommendations should
not take ICANN's current organizational structure as an unalterable
premise. The ongoing DNSO review[2] and the recent "Country Code
Supporting Organization Statement,"[3] indicate that there are
significant concerns within these groups, and perhaps among others,
that clearly need to be addressed.
Specifically, we need your input on which current ICANN structures are
working well and which are not, and the causes of any current
"problems" or "inadequacies". We also welcome your constructive ideas
on solutions. Clearly any changes to existing ICANN organizational
structure need to adequately accommodate the role of the At-Large and
the overall structure of ICANN, and vice versa. We recognize that a
consensus on a new approach to individual participation and
representation in ICANN must be developed in close coordination with
the existing ICANN organizations and constituencies, and with extensive
input from all interested individuals. We hope this discussion paper
and subsequent discussion will foster such collaboration and result in
better outcomes.
Our Initial Conclusion: Yes, Individuals Need A Voice in ICANN
After broad outreach and deliberation, the ALSC has come to the initial
position that some form of structured involvement of individual
Internet users in ICANN policy formulation and decision-making is
needed, along with representation of individual Internet users on
ICANN's Board. While this may appear obvious to some, we did not want
to jump to conclusions without considering a full range of arguments.
It is clear to us that there is a "public interest" responsibility
vested in ICANN, and therefore some role for individuals (as well as
non-commercial interests, etc.) is appropriate. In essence, ICANN
needs to be accountable not just to those people whose daily work
concerns ICANN's activities (and who may be Supporting Organization
members), but also those who are affected by its actions but whose
daily focus is elsewhere. Actions ICANN takes within its seemingly
narrow technical and administrative mission can affect (and generate
interest among) the world's individual Internet users in a myriad of
ways. These users hold a variety of values and represent interests
that may be personal, political or economic. They care about issues
such as access to domain names in non-Latin characters, the potential
use of IP addresses and domain names for identification or location of
individuals and groups, the mapping of telephone numbers to Internet
addresses, competition and choice (or not) in the provision of various
services provided by independent parties under contract to ICANN,
domain-name intellectual property issues, and the like.
There is concern, however, that the existing ICANN policy development
and decision-making structure has not fulfilled expectations of
involving and representing these various individuals and their
interests.
The Process
In reviewing numerous ICANN discussions and resulting decisions, we
found it difficult to follow the documented "consensus" decision-making
process. In many instances, it is unclear how the input into a
particular "open process" decision was duly considered, documented and
assimilated. We want to ensure that all interested individuals have an
opportunity to participate fully in "bottom-up ICANN consensus
development." And we want to ensure that there is a mechanism that
will make this possible. There certainly is an opportunity for ICANN,
potentially through an At-Large membership, to organize individuals'
energy and experience in a more productive manner - making the issues
intelligible to a broader community and giving individuals a way to
turn their feedback into tangible influence in an accountable,
transparent and predictable manner.
In making recommendations on the role of an At Large membership in
ICANN, our intention is to help create a policy and decision-making
structure and process within ICANN that fosters understanding and
accommodation between various constituencies, including individual
Internet users. We are striving to recommend such a structure and
process to help ensure that ICANN's policies truly reflect the needs,
interests and rights of all its stakeholders - including those who may
not like its policies but who will ideally feel that at least their
arguments were understood and fairly considered.
Concept Papers to Follow
Our charge to conduct a comprehensive study and to "consider the proper
relationship between an At-Large membership and ICANN's three
Supporting Organizations,"[1] has led us to begin development, in
conjunction with the affected communities, of recommendations for
individual Internet user participation in ICANN.
We welcome input to help further our understanding of how the existing
ICANN policy development and decision-making structure has (or has not)
fulfilled expectations of involving and representing all relevant
stakeholders. We also look forward to receiving any ideas that might
improve the ICANN process and structure and individuals' role within
it. To foster constructive discussion, and to focus on concrete
possibilities - solutions rather than opinions and goals - we are
developing concept papers for your review. [See Appendix B, "Proposed
Schedule of ALSC Activities"]
We are particularly interested in hearing your views on what would
constitute a successful structure and process for individual Internet
user participation. Thus far, our view is that a successful structure
and process should:
- Fulfill ICANN's mission of acting in the public's interest in its
administration of the Internet's technical name and numbering
infrastructure, and balance the commercial and institutional
interests that are already well represented within the organization.
- Ensure that ICANN operates in a manner that is stable,
accountable, transparent, and predictable.
- Increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance by fulfilling
ICANN's goal of having its decisions supported by a broad and
documented consensus among affected parties.
- Engender knowledge within, and support from, interested
communities by giving them a demonstrable way of participating and
affecting policy.
- Inject the necessary public interest perspectives into
coordination of relevant ICANN issues. This includes bringing
non-technical considerations to bear on technical decisions, as well
as providing ICANN with advance warning of issues that have the
potential of being critical or controversial in the "non-technical"
world.
- Encourage both the "non-technical" and "technical" communities to
explain their concerns and the impact of their work more effectively
to the broader public.
Regardless of how individual involvement is ultimately achieved, it is
reasonable to expect that ICANN's Board will continue to be the focal
point for critical decisions. Therefore, Board representation of
individual Internet users also must be addressed, and we are eager to
hear your views on how this might be achieved.
Our effort to recommend any reconfiguration of Board membership is
driven by several goals, including the need to:
- Fulfill ICANN's commitment to greater accountability of the Board
of Directors to the Internet community.
- Ensure "users' voices" are represented in ICANN's decisions.
- Represent the diverse interests of those affected by ICANN
decisions.
- Select high-quality Board members capable of understanding and
fulfilling ICANN's responsibilities.
- Avoid "capture" of the Board through disproportionate and opaque
representation of any one organization or interest group or
community.
- Ensure the Board Members work together effectively to fulfill its
responsibilities.
In considering participation and Board representation, your input is
especially needed on both factual questions and normative issues that,
for us, remain unresolved, including (but not limited to):
- Within each Supporting Organization, are the existing processes and
structures meeting the expectations of their participants? What aspects
of the process are working well? How can existing processes be
improved? Are all stakeholders/communities adequately represented?
- In order to gauge the level of participation and activity in ICANN's
existing communities, as represented by their mailing lists, what are
the basic statistics of these lists (e.g. number of participants,
demographics, frequency of posting etc.)?
- Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face
meetings/teleconferences? How often are such meetings held?
- How are the results of the email discussions, teleconferences, and
face-to-face meetings summarized, documented and forwarded for
consideration by other ICANN participants? What working languages are
used?
- What conflict-of-interest provisions exist within each of the
existing Supporting Organizations?
- What mechanisms exist to demonstrate that due weight is given to
input provided to each of the Supporting Organizations? What is the
Supporting Organizations' operational definition of "consensus"? If
consensus is/is not possible, are the points of agreement and
disagreement, rationale, etc. summarized and documented? What/who
determines if consensus has been reached?
- How much can be expected to be achieved from purely voluntary
ICANN participation? What might the role of a professional
secretariat/support staff for the Supporting Organizations play in
facilitating participation and deliberation? How might such staff be
funded?
- Who is staff accountable to (and who should staff be accountable
to)? What is the nature of the relationship between ICANN staff and
the existing Supporting Organizations? What protocol governs their
interactions and priorities?
- Other than reading through relevant mailing list archives, what
other resources exist that make understanding the issues being
discussed in ICANN more accessible? In which languages are such
materials produced?
- How should existing and potential constituencies be organized into
Supporting Organizations or other entities such as interest groups,
political parties, etc.
- How can individuals be encouraged to self-organize without ICANN's
direct involvement?
- What would be each entity's role, authority, and funding source?
- What (if any) specific consensus development processes should be
recommended?
- Should Directors selected by individual Internet users be a
majority or minority of the Board members? How should Board seats be
allocated? Should the current balance of Directors (i.e. 9 from the
SOs and 9 from At-Large) be kept?
- Should elections of Directors be direct or indirect (or a
combination)? How should candidates be nominated? What voting
procedures should be used? Who should have the ability to vote?
- If direct elections are recommended, should they be held among
particular groupings of Internet users, or should they be geographic
or issue-based (including issue or agenda-driven "parties")?
- Should some demonstration of commitment be required for
participation in elections (such as requirements based on knowledge,
participation, or money)?
- How can individual users be informed about ICANN? How can
candidates for election and interest groups in any form communicate
with ICANN's "At-Large members"? Relevant issues include privacy,
language, Net access (use of Web vs. e-mail) and others.
Comments@atlargestudy.org
In making any recommendations to the ICANN Board, we want to ensure
that we adequately address the role of an At-Large membership within
the ICANN structure as a whole. We are optimistic that mechanisms with
individual involvement can be found that will enable ICANN to develop
balanced and well-considered policies for Internet domain names, IP
address numbers, protocol parameter and port numbers, with the consent
of those who have the responsibility to implement them for the benefit
of the world's Internet community.
Please email your comments to us at comments@atlargestudy.org or send
them to our on-line forum at http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml.
Thank you for your consideration and participation.
The At-Large Study Committee: Carl Bildt (Chair), Chuck Costello (Vice
Chair), Pierre Dandjinou, Esther Dyson, Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu,
Thomas Niles, Oscar Robles, and Pindar Wong (Vice Chair). Denise
Michel, Executive Director.
****************************************************************
Appendix A: Brief Background
The U.S. Department of Commerce, in granting ICANN its authority, urged
ICANN to ensure "greater accountability of the Board of Directors to
the Internet community" and to "operate in a bottom-up and
representative manner, open to input from the broad community of
Internet users."[4]
How this accountability and representation should be achieved has been
hotly debated since before ICANN was created in response to a request
from (but not by) the U.S. Government. In addition to the diversity of
views on how ICANN should be structured and operated, there also has
been widespread disagreement on the mechanisms for At-Large
representation (how to avoid fraud, abuse or capture).
Currently, a 19-member Board of Directors governs ICANN, with nine
members from three Supporting Organizations (three from each SO), five
members who were selected by an At-Large membership, four members who
were appointed and have served since ICANN was created, and one member
who is the corporation's President and CEO. The Board and the three
SO's are designed to include representatives of a specific set of
Internet "stakeholders." ICANN's bylaws called for these three SO's to
be "formed through community consensus": the Domain Name Supporting
organization (DNSO), the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), and the
Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO).
Although the original nine-member Board was picked by Jon Postel and
was seated upon ICANN's creation, there was no consensus on how the
nine "At-Large Directors" should be selected going forward. In July,
2000, ICANN's Board adopted a compromise interim solution: the
worldwide direct election of five "At-Large" Directors for the ICANN
Board, one from each of five geographic regions (Africa,
Asia/Australia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North
America), by a self-selected At-Large membership, combined with the
continued service of four of the initial ICANN directors (for a period
not to exceed two years) to ensure that there would remain nine At-
Large "slots" on the ICANN Board until (at a minimum) the results of
this At-Large study are implemented. As part of this compromise, it was
agreed that, during the next two years, there would be a "clean-sheet"
study of how to appropriately provide for input and influence into
ICANN policy deliberations and actions by the individual Internet user
community. The five At-Large Directors were selected through an on-line
election process and seated on the Board in November 2000. On January
26, 2001, ICANN announced the creation of the ALSC and the Board
approved the Committee's members on March 20.[5]
****************************************************************
Appendix B: Proposed Schedule of ALSC Activities
Issue Discussion Paper #1 with Proposed Schedule of ALSC Activities
(July 12)
Issue key questions regarding potential structures/directions (July)
Issue Discussion Paper #2 listing additional points of ALSC agreement
and potential options for individual Internet user participation in
ICANN (July)
ALSC working and outreach meetings (August 13)
Issue Draft Report (by September 7)
ALSC working and outreach meetings (September 7)
Submit final report to ICANN Board and issue to public (by November 14)
--------------------------------------------
Footnotes
1. "Charter for the At Large Membership Study Committee," ICANN,
January 22, 2001, http://www.icann.org/committees/at-large-
study/charter-22jan01.htm
2. ICANN Public Comment Forum, DNSO Review,
http://forum.icann.org/dnsoreview1/
3. "ccSO Formation Statement (Stockholm, 1 June, 2001)," by the "World
Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names, ccTLD Constituency of the
DNSO," http://www.wwtld.org/
4. "U.S. Government White Paper" (United States Department Of Commerce
Management of Internet Names and Addresses, National Telecommunications
and Information Administration, Statement of Policy), June 5, 1998,
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6 5 98dns.htm
5. At-Large Study Committee information can be found at
http://www.atlargestudy.org
|
