Re: [atlarge-discuss] news from bucharest: at large exists again

[Lawrence Solum <Lawrence.Solum@lls.edu>]

Jamie observes that the proposed at-large advisory council (ALAC) is 
not "the public selecting their own representatives."  I would like to 
point out the complexity and subtlety of this goal.

Consider, first, the question as to who constitutes the relevant 
public.  Surely, it should not be limited to those who are already 
involved in the ICANN process or other internet related organizations 
and activities.  The public at large includes not only all internet 
users, but also those who are not currently users.  Indeed, one of the 
most relevant "publics" is those persons who do not have access to the 
internet because of the digital divide.

Consider, second, the difficulty of conducting a direct electoral 
process that facilitates meaningful participation by the whole of the 
various relevant "publics."  Any opt-in online election is likely to be 
substantially skewed towards persons who are members of groups, firms, 
organizations, and other structures who are involved with the internet 
in some formal way.  Yet such groups are already represented in a 
variety of ways in the ICANN process.  Even national elections suffer 
from signficant legitimacy problems because of low levels of 
participation; such problems will be multiplied by several orders of 
magnitude in any foreseeable direct online election of 
representatives.  Moreover, election processes are subject to capture 
and corruption in a variety of forms.

Consider, third, the ways in which intermediate organizations, such as 
consumer groups, professional associations, civil liberties and civil 
rights groups, and a variety of civil society entitities do 
meaningfully represent very large numbers of persons with respect to 
public interests that are implicated in decisions made by ICANN.

Consider, fourth, the inherent problem of collective action that is at 
the heart of the at-large problem.  The very idea of at-large is 
defined by way of contrast to those special interests that are able to 
solve the collective action problem.  Registrars, registries, 
intellectual property organizations, and so forth--these constituencies 
have the kind of stake in the coutcome of the ICANN process that 
enables them to overcome the collective action problem.  The "public at 
large" is, in a real and meaningful sense, the group that cannot 
overcome collective action problems.  Why not?  First, because the 
interests of individual internet users or individual domain holders is 
not sufficiently concentrated to justify significant individual 
resource exepditures on influencing the ICANN process.  Second, the 
transaction costs for this group to organize and share the costs of 
influence preclude a collective action solution.

Consider, fifth, the interaction between the third and fourth 
observations.  Intermediate groups represent a special opportunity to 
overcome collective action problems.  Such groups are already organized 
and frequently have relationships with one another for coordinating 
activities.

What are the implications of these considerations for the question as 
to whether the proposed ALAC could in some meaningful way contribute to 
representation of the public interest within the ICANN process?  
Perhaps one implication is that at-large organizing efforts should not 
be exclusively focused on direct democratic input into the ICANN 
process.  Intermediary organizations may have an important and useful 
role to play.

Lawrence Solum

----- Original Message -----
From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org>
Date: Thursday, June 27, 2002 5:50 am
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] news from bucharest: at large exists 
again

> Vittorio, there is a big problem that you should mention.  The 
> Esther/Board 
> version of the at-large is the exact opposite of what it was.  
> Instead of 
> the public electing their own leaders, now the ICANN board will 
> pick which 
> members of the public can speak for the public.  You know.  Like 
> in the old 
> USSR.   As you know, individual cannot join the at large on their 
> own, and 
> ICANN will decide which organizations can join, and ICANN will 
> decide who 
> "really" represents user interests, and how.   If you like this, 
> it is good 
> evidence that you would really fit in.
> 
> Jamie
> 
> 
> 
> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > Dear fellow members,
> > 
> > it is worth noting that since five minutes ago, as per Lyman 
> Chapin's> proposed amendment to the Blueprint exposed while 
> presenting it to the
> > public forum, the At Large concept exists again, though with 
> very limited
> > prerogatives if compared to the original election of half of the 
> Board. I am
> > sure that many of us will complain about this or consider it 
> just a fig
> > leaf, but for those (very few) of us who actually bothered to 
> come here to
> > Bucharest and spend the last days lobbying for this to happen, 
> it is
> > definitely a great achievement, at least as a starting point.
> > 
> > We'll have to discuss (I imagine, very hardly) in the next days 
> whether this
> > proposed role (an At Large Advisory Committee similar to the GAC 
> and the
> > other ACs) suits us, whether it is acceptable, or whether we 
> should refuse
> > to participate in it and try to overturn ICANN as a whole. But 
> at least,
> > this is a huge step forward if compared to the "nothing" of the 
> Blueprint> document.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de