Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft

["Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>]

Sotiris,

The draft that you posted is out of date, I believe.  There have been three 
revisions since then (2.0, 2.1, 3.0).

The biggest change was to add a "Part I" that restates the ALAC's support 
for election of At Large directors.

Hans


At 06:26 AM 7/25/2002 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>All,
>
>Seems the list software is set up to reject attachments.
>I've included the working draft below.
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>---------
>At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)  -- A discussion text
>-- 21 July 2002
>1. Background
>a. Need for At-Large….mechanism for individual users'
>participation in ICANN…formalized role in the policy
>development process that ensures that user views are
>seriously taken into account…
>b. Etc
>2. Role and Responsibilities
>a. ALAC is a standing advisory committee of the Board
>b. Provides advice and guidance to the Board and to other
>organizations within ICANN on the needs of, and the impact
>of proposed policies on, the Internet's individual users ­
>addressing pending issues and introducing new issues
>relevant to Internet issues and within ICANN's purview.
>c. Serves both as a resource for ICANN to pursue specific
>issues/questions and solicit user information, and as a
>meeting point for individual Internet users and their
>organizations.
>d. All ICANN policy-making entities will provide ALAC with
>appropriate notice of upcoming and pending policy
>discussions and impending policy decisions to ensure
>adequate opportunity for At-Large input
>e. Through At-Large Structures, ALAC will engage in
>outreach to, and education of, individual Internet users
>about ICANN/ICANN issues and will involve users and their
>representatives in decision making, aggregation of views,
>and identification of relevant Internet user priorities
>f. ALAC will work with other ICANN stakeholders to address
>issues and develop positions on relevant issues
>g. ALAC will use on-line mechanisms as focal points for
>discussions and information dissemination, ensuring broad
>public access to ALAC activities
>h. ALAC will ensure key material is appropriately
>translated and made publicly available.
>3. Structure/Membership
>a. Should be structured so as to:
>i. Provide effective, broadly inclusive mechanism for
>involving and representing individual Internet users in
>ICANN's policy and decision-making activities
>ii. Demonstrate that the organizations of which the ALAC
>is composed actually do represent the populations they
>claim to represent.
>iii. Have membership that is geographically diverse, and
>includes representatives from each At-Large Structure
>(group) that meets specified criteria.
>4. Involvement w/ Board, other entities
>a. Non-voting liaison seat on the ICANN Board
>b. Liaisons to other ICANN policy-making bodies as
>appropriate [Note: need to define]
>c. Appointment of delegates to the Nominating Committee
>[Note:  how many?]
>5. "At-Large Structures" Criteria ­ new or existing
>organizations that:
>a. Are open, participatory, and self-sustaining [Note:
>need to elaborate]
>b. Engage in outreach to, and education of, individual
>Internet users about ICANN and ICANN issues
>c. Involve individual Internet users in policy and
>decision-making and activities related to involvement in
>ICANN, including soliciting opinions of their members and
>having participatory mechanisms for the discussion and/or
>development of policies, aggregating views, and
>identifying relevant Internet user priorities concerning
>ICANN
>d. Maintain transparent and publicly accessible processes
>for input, policy development, and decision-making
>e. Post current information about the organization's aims,
>structure, membership, working mechanisms and current
>leadership
>f. Are open for new members
>g. Are able to maintain themselves without requiring
>funding from ICANN
>6. At-Large Structure Designation/Development
>a. ICANN should post and distribute a call for At-Large
>Structures, providing organizations with an appropriate
>period of time apply to be eligible to participate in
>(send representative to) the initial ALAC.
>b. Organizations fulfilling the criteria can apply to
>become At-Large Structures at any time and participate in
>the ALAC as appropriate (immediately or during next
>selection cycle depending on process).
>
>[Note:  More thought/discussion needed; the ALAC must be
>able to demonstrate (not just assert) that the groups (the
>"at large structures") of which the ALAC is composed
>actually do represent the populations they claim to
>represent. Examples of "demonstration" include evidence
>that a group has programs and activities that in fact (not
>just in principle) engage individuals in ways that make
>the group a genuinely representative "at large structure"
>with respect to ICANN.]
>7. ALAC Composition (options)
>a. (Variable membership) One member from each At-Large
>Structure
>b. (Fixed membership) Fixed number from each region (ICANN
>has traditionally addressed geographic diversity based on
>five regions of the world) (the "Alexander plan")
>c. Fixed membership, half appointed and half elected (the
>"Vittorio plan")
>8. ALAC Funding and Staffing ALAC (options)
>a. Self-funded by ALAC members/At-Large Structures and
>rotating secretariat
>b. ICANN funded (or matching funds) and dedicated ICANN
>staff/secretariat
>
>///////////////////////////////////////////////////
>(Vittorio Bertola's proposal)
>Thus my idea is that we should have a Committee whose
>members are selected with more than one method.
>
>For example, let's suppose that we have a Committee whose
>size is fixed at 20 members (I think you can't have less
>if you want to be somewhat representative of the global
>users, and more would be even more unmanageable), with one
>year term (to allow more rotation and to have short terms
>that also non-professionals could afford). Then you could
>have 10 elected members and 10 appointed members.
>
>The appointed members could be selected by one of the
>following methods:
>- appointed each year by 10 different At Large Structures,
>one each, selected randomly with provisions to guarantee
>rotation and geographical diversity (ie at least one org
>from each Region);
>- nominated by the ICANN NomCom;
>- nominated by an ad-hoc NomCom appointed half by the ALAC
>and half by the Board.
>
>The other members would be elected according to the
>following scheme:
>- all At Large Structures supply their individual members
>to a general individual membership of a sort of
>"supporting organization", which I
>called ALMO (Membership Organization); the various
>Structures take care about identity verification as they
>already possibly do, perhaps
>with some minimum method requirements and some random
>verifications by the ALMO itself;
>- the ALMO manages to hold online elections for 2
>representatives in the ALAC from each Region;
>- the ALMO also elects a small panel, with the only
>purpose of running the organization and managing the
>elections;
>- as an option, the panel elects its Chairman, who can be
>the 21st member of the ALAC if we want to break parity.
>
>The ALAC would then elect its Chairman, its Board liaison,
>and its NomCom members (which I still hope will be in the
>number of four).
>
>In this schema, the ALMO would be a very simple and low
>cost organization - no mass physical mailings, no direct
>customer care, just some online resources, a small budget
>for common expenses and election costs, and possibly a
>Secretariat person supplied by ICANN, who could in fact be
>the same person devoted to the ALAC. (At least one staff
>person for At Large support is needed in any case.)
>
>So you would still have an individual membership, but it
>wouldn't be the ICANN membership - it would be the
>membership of an external super-partes organization with
>which ICANN could have an MoU. There would be online
>elections to satisfy partly those who look for online
>democracy, but they would be managed by an external
>organization, thus ICANN would not directly have to
>support the burden of making them practically work, and
>the related criticism. I think that these two points might
>help in overcoming the Board's extreme doubtfulness in
>accepting to have online elections again - personally, I
>think that it is important to have elections.
>
>Of course, such elections would elect half of a Committee
>which in turn would elect one non-voting Board member - so
>I can't see how even the worst and heavily captured or
>unrepresentative elections could seriously endanger
>ICANN's effectiveness. On the other hand, the concept of
>online elections would at least be accepted inside ICANN,
>and would allow to build a starting point from which, once
>the mechanism is up and running, we could try to extend
>the number of elective positions in the organization.
>
>What do you think about this? Of course we have
>intermediate alternatives - for example, we can recommend
>a fully elective composition of the ALAC, and see how the
>ERC reacts; it might not be a bad idea. We should also
>think at some ideas about identity verification
>mechanisms.
>
>////////////////////////////////////////////////
>(Alexander Svensson's proposal)
>The ALAC itself consists of 10 Committee members, 2
>members from each At Large region. This helps to ensure
>regional diversity, while at the same time keeping the
>Committee at a workable size. An absolutely necessary
>precondition to be accepted by user organizations is that
>the Committee members are not selected by the ICANN Board
>or Nominating Committee, but by the user organizations
>themselves - organized in an At Large Council of User
>Organizations. Almost no user organization is willing to
>lend its name and credibility to a Committee when it is
>unable to decide on its composition. On the other hand,
>both ICANN and the user community have an interest in
>ensuring that the user organizations are genuine
>membership organizations and neither one man shows nor
>commercial corporations.
>
>Both user organizations created specifically "for" ICANN
>and those that already deal with other Internet issues are
>invited to become a member of the At Large Council,
>provided that they fulfil the criteria mentioned in the
>section 5 about ALAC rights and duties. The criteria for
>new user organizations are not checked by ICANN, but by
>the ALAC itself.
>
>The ALAC members are directly elected by the user
>organizations of each region. In each region, every user
>organization in the At Large Council has a vote. User
>organizations with more than 500 members receive one
>additional vote, those with more than 5000 members two
>additional votes. Each organization needs to have at least
>25 members to join the At Large Council. The Council and
>ALAC members are elected without
>intervention by Nominating Committee and ICANN Board. The
>10 elected ALAC members - two from each region - elect
>their own Chair from among themselves.
>
>Organizations with regional substructures, e.g. national
>chapters, are counted as one large organization if they
>present a unified perspective or as several small
>organizations if each of the regional organizations has
>its own
>decision-making process sufficiently independent from the
>overall organization.
>
>ALAC has the right:
>? to send a number of delegates to the Nominating
>Committee, to help choosing Board directors that also
>reflect the user perspective. It is proposed to start by
>using the four NomCom delegates which were called
>"unaffiliated public interest persons".
>? to send three voting members to the Generic Names
>Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council. Policy development
>takes place in different ways in the areas of country code
>TLDs (mainly on a national level) and IP addresses (mainly
>on a regional level), but in the area of gTLD policy
>development, the GNSO is the starting point in the
>bottom-up policy development process. This proposal has
>already received the support of some of the DNSO (future
>GNSO) constituencies at the Bucharest ICANN meeting.
>? to send non-voting liaisons to the other policy
>coordination bodies (i.e. ASO and ccSO) to help
>communication across the SOs. In addition, the ALAC works
>closely together with other Advisory Committees when
>needed
>? to send a non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board (like
>TAC, SAC and GAC) to facilitate coordination and
>communication
>------------------
></end>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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