[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[aso-council] ALSC Request for input
Thank you very much for your request.
The topic you are studying are indeed of interest to us, and I will seek
guidiance from my community on what response will be appropriate.
I have forwarded your message to all of the Address Council and will expect
us to discuss how to respond to your request at our next meeting at latest
I have also forwarded your message to the RIPE Policy Working group (lir-wg)
to seek comments and input from the working group members. We have a working
group meeting in Prague 1 - 5 October 2001 but that may as I understand your
timeline, be a bit on the late side for the result of the discussion to be
incorporated.
Sincerely,
Hans Petter Holen
AC Chair/RIPE lir-wg Chair
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Bildt" <cbildt@atlargestudy.org>
To: "Hans Petter Holen" <hph@online.no>; "Takashi Arano"
<arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp>; "Jianping Wu" <jianping@sea.net.edu.cn>; "Seung-Min
Lee" <smlee@i-names.co.kr>; "Raimundo Beca" <rbeca@ctc.cl>; "Cathy
Wittbrodt" <cjw@remarque.org>; "Barbara Roseman" <barbara@gblx.net>;
"Wilfried Woeber" <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at>; "Sabine Jaume"
<Sabine.Jaume@renater.fr>; "Raul Echeberria" <raul@inia.org.uy>; "Nii
Quaynor" <Quaynor@ghana.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:51 AM
Subject: Request for input
| Greetings,
|
| On behalf of the At-Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC), I would
| like to solicit input from the Supporting Organization (SO)ASO and its
| constituents, as well as share with you our first "Discussion Paper"
| and our plans for completing our recommendations.
|
| We are eager to work with you and your colleagues to ensure that we
| have a thorough understanding of your activities, structure and needs -
| and your views on the relationship between your Supporting
| Organization, its constituents, and the "At-Large" membership
| (individual Internet user community). Details on the functioning of
| current ICANN organizations will aid in our efforts to recommend a
| successful structure/process for At-Large.
|
| Please find enclosed our current thoughts regarding the concept,
| structure and processes relating to an "At-Large" membership ("ALSC
| Discussion Paper"). As indicated in the attached, we are eager to get
| your input on a number of factual questions and normative issues that,
| for us, remain unresolved and important to our recommendations on At-
| Large participation and Board representation.
|
| In light of the ongoing DNSO review and the recent "Country Code
| Supporting Organization Statement," it is clear to us that our
| recommendations should not take ICANN's current organizational
| structure as an unalterable premise. Rather we need to consider ICANN's
| representational and decision-making structures in their entirety (e.g.
| the possible creation of additional Sos and re-allocation of Board
| seats).
|
| As such, the ALSC is actively considering a variety of potential
| participation structures for an "At-Large" that may affect the existing
| SOs, and we would not like to do so without adequate consultation with
| you
|
| Please forward this email to other relevant parties and send your
| thoughts, comments, concerns and suggestions to our Executive Director,
| Denise Michel (dmichel@atlargestudy.org) or to our email forum
| (comments@atlargestudy.org), if possible by July 27.
|
| Included in the paper is a proposed schedule of ALSC activities leading
| up to the submission for our final report to the Board in November. As
| you can see, we have an ambitious and tight schedule, which makes us
| eager to hear from you soon.
|
| If possible, we would like the opportunity to meet with members of your
| organization face-to-face to discuss our activities and draft
| recommendations. The ALSC will be in Silicon Valley (Santa Clara,
| California, USA) on August 13 - 14 and in Montevideo, Uruguay, on
| September 7-8. We would welcome a meeting with your organization, or
| some of its representatives, at these locations or elsewhere. Please
| contact Denise Michel to coordinate or to request additional
| information.
|
| Thank you for your cooperation, and we look forward to working with
| you.
|
| Sincerely,
|
| Carl Bildt
| ALSC Chairman
|
|
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 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
|
|
* on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-council *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-council-request@aso.icann.org *