Your Option?
Click here to see input

Option A

Option C

(At-Large, etc.)

- At-Large member: an individual, not precisely specified.

- "Parties": (could also be special interest groups, splinter groups, self-organizing constituencies.) Key idea is that these are issue (not nationality)-oriented groups that self-organize without permission or explicit support from ICANN. May need criteria for "recognition" by ICANN at some point.

- Participation of individuals may happen in SO's general assembly or through the At-Large constituency (inside "Customer SO") which would include individuals with verifiable postal address.

- At-Large member: individual subscribed to at least 1 ICANN mailing list, verifiable postal address, provide financial support to At-Large Individual SO, willing to serve on the ICANN Board of Directors or Independent Review Panel

Participation Structure Overview (structure by which policies are proposed and discussed and consensus is developed)

Maintains notion of the requirement for consensus. Policies can come from anywhere (such as self-organizing parties/interest groups). SOs work more or less as they do currently, except for restructuring of the DNSO to move its "user" members - companies, IP owners and the like - into the At-Large, represented by individuals who work for those organizaions. Registries (ccTLDs and gTLDs) & registrars form the new "provider SO.". Parties also formulate policies and work with the SOs and some policy working groups to resolve conflicts/win consensus. (Assumption is that these groups would not get involved in technical-only discussions, but with anything that involves money, contracts, domain names, etc. (i.e, mostly with their own or Provider SO working groups.) Policies are then sent on to ICANN Board. (Note: Parties may be active within SOs, since they are not a formal ICANN structure. They may support SO candidates with particular "social" views.

The basic idea is to have a more natural composition of the SO's (based on demonstrated interests and past experiences) that addresses some of the existing DNSO issues and provides a place where the "At-Large Membership" may discuss and participate, as well as a place for the ccTLDs. Entities with contractual relationships with ICANN would have their own SOs.

Primary structure comprised of SOs and Advisory Committees (ACs). SO's must meet criteria:

- Entity that desires to have a document- ed written agreement with ICANN

- Voluntarily or contractually abides by/implements ICANN consensus policies

- Votes for ICANN Board of Directors

- Funds ICANN and the ICANN process

- Does not nominate ICANN Board of Directors

ACs provide important collective points of view on issues that arise occasionally. ICANN-AC relationship represents 'social contracts'. AC structure already part of ICANN.

Supporting Organizations (SO)

5 SOs, split up DNSO into Provider SO and User SO (which would include rest of DNSO plus At-Large Members)

4 SOs, split up DNSO into "new" DNSO and Customer SO. This option separates functions from the SO's, which would have the responsibility of assisting, reviewing and developing recommendations on Internet policy and structure, supporting the Board' policy development activities.

- SOs self-created by those meeting the above criteria

- SO's are essentially those responsible for complying with ICANN consensus policy. Eg.:

gTLD SO (unsponsored registries), ccTLD SO (registries), Registrars SO, ASO (status quo), PSO (status quo), At-Large /Individual SO,

NSO (network/ infrastructure operators), RSO (Root Server Operators)?

At Large/Individual SO responsible for fostering/coordinating participation of individuals (outreach) (including enabling easier access to ICANN material (eg. generating/translating/ simplifying ICANN material and forum discussions).

SO Councils

5 Councils (but User SO Council may be differently organized).

Each SO would have a Council

- No change in PSO/ASO/DNSO Councils

- At Large/ Individual SO Council

SO General Assemblies (GA)

The GA of the former DNSO enlarges to become a GA of At-Large Members, which de facto means almost anyone (including individuals from the other SOs, and of course former DNSO members).

Each SO would have a GA

Each SO would have a GA, however additional Supra-SO GA would be responsible for passing documents among SO's and ACs to help ensure that a predictable process is followed when considering policy. Written/ summarized documentation is essential.

Staffing

Need to consider whether At-Large Directors get their own (paid) staff. Obviously, parties will need to fund their own staff, but what benefits do (should) "winning" parties get?

CSO must be self-structured and self funded, since it would not provide financial support to ICANN. Have not addressed the other SOs.

Existing ICANN staff to help administer Supra-SO General Assembly.

ASO

Regional Internet Registries (Status Quo)

Regional Internet Registries (Status Quo)

Regional Internet Registries (Status Quo)

PSO

IETF, W3C, ETSI (Status Quo)

IETF, W3C, ETSI (Status Quo)

IETF, W3C, ETSI (Status Quo)

DNSO and At-Large Membership

2 new SOs instead of DNSO: Provider SO for registries (gTLDs and ccTLDs) and registrars; and User SO for companies, individuals, NGOs, ISPs, domainname holders

DNSO split into 2 SOs: DNSO for registries and registrars; and Customer SO for consumers, users, business, noncommercial, intellectual property, individual domain name holders, and others (All interested parties, organizations or individuals may join the CSO. CSO must be self structured, and self funded, since they won't provide financial support to ICANN

Over time, constituencies would evolve into those that want to have a formal agreement with and/or financial support to the ICANN process (SOs) and those that only wish to provide considered advice (ACs)

GAC

No Change

No Change

No Change

Other entities

Encourage self-organizing parties/ interest groups to participate in the elections and GAs and in policy working groups.

Move forward with creation of IRP.

- Independent Review Panel comprised of rotating, randomly selected At-Large members in addition to currently proposed IRP structure which is there to provide the 'professional' and expert legal view and advice.

- Supra-SO GA (noted above) comprised of 1 representative from each SO and AC; a non-blocking, paper-passing entity to ensure that the 'consensus process' is formally documented and all views are formally noted/ considered.

Representation Structure Overview (how constituencies are represented on the Board)

19 Directors:

- 3 from ASO

- 3 from PSO

- 3 from Provider SO

- 9 elected by User SO

- 1 CEO

19 Directors:

- 3 from ASO

- 2 from PSO

- 4 from ("new") DNSO (3 from registries and 1 from registrars)

- 9 from Customer SO (4 from organizational constituencies and 5 from individual constituencies)

- 1 CEO

- 19 'At-Large' Directors working in the best interests of the Internet and ICANN, representing only themselves.

- Board viewed as a collective set of skills at a given moment.

- Each open seat on the Board viewed as an opportunity to add additional skill sets that may be required at the time.

- No artificial balance of them v. us, and avoids making arbitrary, static assumptions

- Existing directors would be gradually replaced over time.

Selection of Directors

- Half the board should be elected by the public, and the other half by people within ICANN's technical/business oriented structure.

- At-Large Directors can be nominated by SO members as well as At-Large Members, but must win election by AL members.

Policies (or proposed policies) can be used as platforms for elections.

Need rules fostering transparency (avoiding capture).

Not addressed

- Nominated by At-Large, elected by SOs

- Recalled by SOs

- At Large finds most capable candidates, winning candidates gain support of the most SO's

- Geographical diversity still applies to the Board as a whole

- Voting would be affordable/scaleable given small number of SO's.

- Campaigning/ voting done in public, with SOs using existing selection process to rank candidates

- Emphasis on early 'capture' detection instead of perfect prevention.

- Particiption requirement (mailing list) and appeal to SO's helps provide Directors who are familiar with, and have participated in, ICANN

Nominations

User SO candidates could be nominated by anyone, but there would be no "official" candidates from the ICANN Board.

Not addressed

- All candidates are At-Large members, nominated by the At-Large membership, and willing to campaign for SO votes (answer questions, debate, etc)

Voting/Policy Process

Not addressed, but would most likely involve parties. FWIW, the assumption is that companies and other organizations would be active in the User SO and within parties, but only individuals could vote. That is, companies' policies/ platforms would have to win approval from individuals. Obviously, there's an issue here of funding for less popular or corporate points of view - not a new problem. Some of this imbalance would be redressed by the ICANN mailing lists, with read-write access open to all.

Not addressed

Directors elected by the SOs; for each open seat, each SO provides a ranking of candidates, preferential voting system decides winning candidates (can use existing selection mechanisms).

Communications with members

Important to set up mailing lists (privacy protected with aliases at individuals' option) so that parties and candidates can communicate with members. Need to set up policies about use of the mailing lists, managed by an independent third party under contract. Important to provide email as well as Web access.

Not addressed

Not addressed

Notes

We still need to address costs of elections, any possible membership fees, and whether AL directors should be compensated.

Additional Information

Each ICANN Board Director vote is documented. Board Directors encouraged to publicly document individual decisions.

Additional Information