[icann-eu] [ALSC] Comments on the Melbourne Questions.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

Dear members of the at large study committee,


below, I'm addressing some of the questions you posted for your
Melbourne meeting.  Quite a few of the answers evolved during
discussions with Alexander Svensson.


Before I cover some of the individual questions, I'd like to
emphasize one point which I believe to be of crucial importance for
your committee's work: There is ample record on most of the
questions you have to address. These questions were discussed in the
Membership Advisory Committee. They were discussed before last
year's elections.  Some of them were even discussed in the DoC White
and Green Papers.  Please make use of this record, and use your time
- and the community's - to address this question: How can public
participation in the ICANN process be improved in the future?  What
can be learned from the experiences ICANN has collected?


1. What are the benefits and goals of At Large involvement?  This is
- in part - answered by the White Paper which describes ICANN as an
organization which should be "representative of Internet users
around the globe".

An At Large involvement with ICANN could help to accomplish the
following objectives: (1) ensure representation of Internet users in
ICANN's decision-making structures, (2) improve accountability and
responsibility of ICANN to Internet users, (3) help to prevent
self-interested decisions determined by the interests of single,
strong stakeholder groups.


2. To what degree should the general Internet community be involved
in ICANN?

Once again, an answer can be found in the White Paper, which
explicitly mentions that the ICANN board should represent
"membership organizations in each of these areas (numbers, names,
and protocols), as well as the direct interests of Internet users."
Not representing or underrepresenting the general Internet community
on ICANN's board would further damage the equilibrium between the
different stakeholder groups, and would undermine the consensus on
which ICANN was founded.


3. How should an at large member be defined? Should be any
membership requirements?  

I do not believe that there should be any such requirements, since
they would inevitably exclude parties with legitimate interests.
Complex criteria will almost certainly do more harm than good. Also,
I'd like to quote from the ICANN Membership Advisory Committee's
findings stated in its Berlin report of May 1999: "The most feasible
protection against capture by interests that are not representative
of the user community at large is to enroll as many Members as
possible."


4. What processes and structures should be established within ICANN
for At Large Member Involvement?

ICANN should help the diverse At Large Membership to quickly form
structures.  An easy and efficient way of doing so would be to
facilitate communication between any initiatives and organizations
which are concerned with ICANN policy, and the At Large Membership -
be it by regularly posting a newsletter, or be it by creating an
appropriate announcement web site.  ICANN should, however, not do
anything to favor or dis-favor any initiatives or organizations.

Access to an announcement web site or mailing list should be on a
first-come-first-serve basis, and according to published,
reasonable, and simple rules.  This will also help to prevent any
"capture" of the at large membership by self-interested goups.

It should be noted that there are various independent initiatives
which try to fill the gap ICANN is currently leaving at this place.
The amount of activity needed in this area will depend on the
success these groups initiatives will have in the future.

On an ongoing basis, ICANN should look for better replacements for
the current public comment system.  As things are now, a vast amount
of documents on different topics is posted shortly before an ICANN
meeting starts, and public comments are solicited in web forums.
This procedure makes it very hard for a broad public to actually
comment on the issues and topics at stake.

Also, the committee may wish to consider the addition of some kind
of council for the at large membership which could take up various
functions and powers:

   - Elect interim At Large Directors should there be a vacancy as a
     result of death, resignation or removal for some other reason.

   - Possibly remove sitting At Large Directors from their office
     during a term.

   - Provide input to the sitting At Large Directors.

I believe that the Committee should examine whether or not a
consensus on some variant of this concept of an at large council
could be achieved.  It should be noted that an at large council
won't be able to replace the concept of direct elections of half of
the board members.


Kind regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler			    <roessler@does-not-exist.org>