IP: ICANN At-Large Membership Study Committee Discussion Paper #1

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:20:57 -0400
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Esther Dyson <edyson () edventure com>
>
>
> Dave -
>
> Did you already post this and I missed it? Otherwise, could you  please 
> pass it on?  he topic is ICANN and how it can bring individuals (*not* the 
> usual suspects) into its policy formulation and decision making.
>
> Note especially that there is an outreach meeting in Silicon Valley on 
> August 13 and we would really welcome participation from *unusual* 
> suspects.  If one of the IPites would like to make some very brief formal 
> comments or just come and engage in the discussion (this will *not* be a 
> series of presentations), please let us - edyson () edventure com & 
> denisemmichel () home com (executive director of the ICANN At-Large Study 
> Committee) know.  there will shortly be more details on the Website.
>
> Esther
>
>
> > Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 14:06:10 -0400
> > From: "Denise Michel" <dmichel () atlargestudy org>
> > To: <forum () atlargestudy org>
> > Subject: [ALSC-Forum] Discussion Paper #1
> > Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:08:43 -0700
> > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
> > Sender: owner-forum () www atlargestudy org
> > Resent-From: forum () www atlargestudy org
> > Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2001 17:11:10.0931 (UTC) 
> > FILETIME=[A5E09A30:01C10AF5]
> >
> >
> > 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 John 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe: 7 to 9 November, Berlin
> PC FORUM: 24 to 27 March 2002, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/