[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Report to the ERC from the ALAC-AG (2/2)



Vittorio and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  As was evident in the ALSC this report seems in it's structure
to simply regurgitate that committees findings or recommendations
in this effort.  Such was soundly trounced and denounced by
the vast majority of participants in the ALSC.

  One of the main problems here is that the recommendation
for this structure ( A near carbon copy of the old ALSC's )
is that the so called "ICANN Region's definitions were flawed
long ago and never corrected to this day.  Hence the idea
of a new @Large structure as this report states below,
using those same flawed ICANN Regions in "Regional
At-Large Organizations" is only propagating such flawed
regional definitions.  Rather a country wide or voluntary
country based structure would be more appropriate and
would better represent potential @large members...

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> (Part 2)
> -----
>
> Structure
>
> The Assistance Group recommends that an ALAC be established as a
> standing advisory committee of the Board with 15 members to provide
> advice to the Board and other policy-making and advisory organizations
> within ICANN on the needs of, and the impact of proposed policies on,
> the Internet's individual users.  As noted above, we suggest that the
> ALAC - via its liaisons - also participate in some of these
> organizations, rather than merely give advice.
>
> Underpinning the ALAC should be a network of self-organizing,
> self-supporting At-Large Structures throughout the world involving
> individual Internet users at the local or issue level (see examples of
> potential At-Large Structures).  The At-Large Structures should
> self-organize into five regional groups called "Regional At-Large
> Organizations" (using ICANN's 5 geographic regions).  This will allow
> each geographic area to select the type of structure and processes
> that best fit its customs and characteristics, and to manage outreach
> and public involvement more easily, so that the Regional At-Large
> Organizations can become the main forum and coordination point for
> public input to ICANN in their region.
>
> It should be noted that the Assistance Group had extensive discussions
> about various approaches, including direct user involvement/selection
> of ALAC members and At-Large structures that were *not* organized by
> ICANN regions.  A concern remains among some Group members that we are
> over-emphasizing geographic diversity at the expense of addressing
> user issues or involving broader user perspectives.  We encourage all
> interested parties to continue this dialogue and share their views
> directly with the ERC.
>
> Each of the five Regional At-Large Organizations should elect (or
> select, depending on their capabilities and preferences) a Regional
> At-Large Council comprising representative(s) of each At-Large
> Structure. To help prevent capture, some Assistant Group members think
> the Councils should have a fixed number of members, while others felt
> it should remain flexible to meet region's needs (we also did not
> agree on numbers, but discussed 5 - 20). Each of the five Councils
> should then elect/select two members from their region (from different
> countries) to serve on the ALAC for two-year terms.  Each Council also
> should elect/select one delegate to serve on the NomCom.
>
> To accommodate the ERC's wish to have the NomCom appoint some of the
> ALAC's members, we suggest that, initially, the NomCom should appoint
> five ALAC members, with special consideration given to individuals
> from among the international and issue-based organizations relevant to
> ICANN's mission.  This will help to further ensure a broad user
> perspective is represented on the ALAC.
>
> After the ALAC and a global At-Large framework are established and
> operational, the ALAC should work to help establish a process in which
> seats are filled through elections by members of accredited At-Large
> Structures.  Those elected should serve two-year terms (with a
> staggered term system phased in) and comply with criteria that foster
> rotation (e.g. the same organization cannot have a representative in
> the ALAC for two consecutive terms, and the same country cannot send a
> person for 2 consecutive terms).
>
> (See attached diagram).
>
> Each Regional At-Large Organization should be required to enter into a
> memorandum of understanding (MOU) with ICANN to participate in the
> ALAC member election process. The MOU should address the reciprocal
> duties and rights of ICANN and the Organization regarding the process
> of selecting ALAC members, and minimum requirements of openness,
> accountability, diversity, etc. in the Organization's structure (as
> outlined below).  Each Regional At-Large Organization should be
> self-supporting and separate from ICANN, and should be responsible for
> establishing its internal bylaws, structuring its organization, and
> managing the election/selection of ALAC members, provided that they
> meet the basic requirements.
>
> If this approach is recommended by the ERC and adopted by the Board,
> ICANN should ask the ALOC participants to help develop criteria for
> At-Large Structures, and encourage the formation of both At-Large
> Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations.  ALOC participants
> also could assist with development of an MOU template for the Board's
> consideration at ICANN's Shanghai meeting, which would help accelerate
> the MOU process and enable Regional At-Large Organizations to start
> working and to select their ALAC representatives in the following
> months. However, in the event not all ALAC seats can be assigned at
> the inception of the ALAC (e.g. due to lack of one or more Regional
> At-Large Organizations) those seats should remain dormant and be
> filled as soon as the related conditions are met.  Also, the ALAC
> should not start working until an appropriate number of members are in
> place.
>
> The Assistance Group is aware that the risk of capture and control has
> been raised as an argument against more direct At-Large participation.
> Capture is by definition the opposite of diversity, which is why we
> have specifically looked for a structure that preserves both regional
> and organizational diversity.  Within the ALAC, no region can become
> dominant; within each region, organizations will rotate so that no
> organization can dominate the regional representation and each
> Regional At-Large Organization will make sure that no more than a
> fraction of the Regional At-Large Organization's seats are held by
> people from a single country.
>
> Criteria for At-Large Structures/Regional At-Large Organizations
>
> To help prevent participation by organizations that don't genuinely
> reflect the interests of individual members, and to increase the
> quality of At-Large involvement, we recommend that At-Large Structures
> should comply with the following criteria and earn "accreditation"
> from ICANN (initially, the Board could delegate this responsibility to
> the ALOC; the ALAC would have responsibility for accreditation once it
> is established).  Only accredited At-Large Structures should be
> allowed to participate in the Regional At-Large Organizations, or
> operate as international, issue-oriented At-Large Structures.
>
> We recommend the following criteria and standards for At-Large
> Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations:
>
> ·       Open, participatory, and self-sustaining -- At-Large
> Structures should be open to new individual constituents who meet
> their membership requirements (e.g. location, interests, etc.);
> organizations eligible for At-Large Structure accreditation should
> include non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profit,
> non-commercial, individual membership based organizations with a focus
> on issues related to ICANN's mission.
> ·       Engage in outreach to, and education of, individual Internet
> users about ICANN and ICANN issues;
> ·       Involve individual Internet users in policy and
> decision-making and activities related to involvement in ICANN,
> including soliciting opinions of their constituents and having
> participatory mechanisms for the discussion and/or development of
> policies, aggregating views, and identifying relevant Internet user
> priorities concerning ICANN;
> ·       Maintain transparent and publicly accessible processes for
> input, policy development, and decision-making;
> ·       Post current information about the organization's aims,
> structure, constituents, working mechanisms and current leadership;
> ·       Are able to maintain themselves without requiring funding from
> ICANN (other than for the activities of their members who may be
> individual representatives to the ALAC); and
> ·       Are able to guarantee and demonstrate the real identities of
> their constituents and to provide the relevant and appropriate data in
> electronic form.
>
> To launch this effort, ICANN and entities involved in At-Large should
> distribute a call for the development and designation of At-Large
> Structures and establish a simple accreditation process.  At-Large
> Structures should work together to form Regional At-Large
> Organizations, sign an MOU with ICANN, and participate in the
> selection of ALAC members, an executive committee of members who would
> participate in other ICANN entities, and NomCom delegates.  To avoid
> the potential for "early capture" we suggest that Regional At-Large
> Structures meet minimum requirements before ICANN signs an MOU and the
> Organizations s/elect ALAC members and NomCom delegates (e.g. Regional
> At-Large Organizations should be allowed to sign the MoU with ICANN
> only when they, either directly or through their affiliated At-Large
> Structures, have at least 200 individual members from their region).
> (The Assistance Group is discussing additional specific suggestions
> for criteria and the accreditation process which we will submit to the
> ERC in the near future - as a group or individually). Organizations
> fulfilling the criteria should be able to apply to become At-Large
> Structures at any time and participate in the Regional At-Large
> Organizations and the ALAC activities, as appropriate.
>
> It should be the ALAC's responsibility:
> (i)     to alter or update the admission criteria for new Structures;
> (ii)    to exclude from itself any Structure which, after appropriate
> verification, fails to meet the current criteria; and
> (iii)   to state whether any prospective Structure meets the criteria
> and thus can be accepted in the process.
> (Deliberations of type i) and ii) should require a majority vote of
> 2/3 of the ALAC and de facto would most likely have to be approved by
> ICANN at least in principle under the MOU recognizing the ALAC.)
> In the event that an organization is denied accreditation and wishes
> to appeal, we suggest that the issue be sent to the proposed
> "Ombudsman" who would be responsible for considering and making a
> decision on the appeal.
> It also should be the ALAC's responsibility, working in conjunction
> with the Regional At-Large Organizations and using each Region's main
> languages, to:
> (i)     Keep its community informed about the significant news from
> ICANN;
> (ii)    Distribute/post an updated agenda and information about items
> in the ICANN discussion process;
> (iii)   Promote outreach activities in its' community;
> (iv)    Distribute/post news about ICANN;
> (v)     Develop and maintain on-going, information and education
> programs, regarding ICANN and its work;
> (vi)    Establish an outreach strategy about ICANN issues in each
> RALO's Region;
> (vii)   Make public, and analyze, ICANN's proposed policies and its
> decisions and their (potential) regional impact and (potential) effect
> on individuals in the region;
> (viii)  Offer Internet-based mechanisms that enable membership
> discussions; and
> (ix)    Establish mechanisms and processes that enable two-way
> communication between members and those involved in ICANN
> decision-making, so interested individuals can share their views on
> pending ICANN issues.
>
> ICANN should provide a staff person to serve as secretariat for the
> ALAC and as support for facilitating individual users' participation
> in ICANN's policy-making processes.  In furtherance of ICANN's
> outreach and public involvement goals, ICANN should share with the
> Regional At-Large Organizations resources that support the work of the
> ALAC (e.g. web forums, discussion lists, ALAC announcements list,
> etc.).  We also recommend that ICANN reimburse ALAC members' travel
> costs for participation in ICANN Board meetings.  ICANN should include
> these and other ALAC start-up costs in its budget and commit to
> funding them, as an important signal to the At-large community and the
> Department of Commerce that it takes individual Internet users'
> participation and their concerns seriously.
>
> Conclusion
>
> In the context of ICANN's current reform process, we view the
> establishment of an ALAC as an important first step towards structured
> involvement of the individual user community in ICANN.  We offer these
> recommendations for the establishment of an ALAC and a supporting
> regional At-Large structure as a practical way of formalizing a role
> for At-Large within ICANN's policy development process that ensures
> users' views are taken into account. The Assistance Group would be
> pleased to answer any questions the ERC may have and will continue to
> provide additional suggestions and comments either as individuals or
> as a Group.
>
> =======================================
> Addendum - At-Large History
>
> In November, 1998, the U.S. Department of Commerce recognized ICANN in
> a Memorandum of Understanding/Joint Project Agreement. With regard to
> membership, the MOU specified that ICANN and DOC would, "Collaborate
> on the design, development, and testing of appropriate membership
> mechanisms that foster accountability to and representation of the
> global and functional diversity of the Internet and its users, within
> the structure of the private-sector DNS management organization."  In
> January, 1999, ICANN created a Membership Advisory Committee (MAC),
> and asked for its recommendations on a range of membership policy and
> procedural issues. The MAC's final report and commentary was submitted
> to the Board, in May, 1999.
>
> After considerable public discussion and no apparent consensus,
> ICANN's Board adopted what is described as "a compromise interim
> solution: the direct selection of five ICANN directors by a
> self-selected At-Large constituency; the continued service of four of
> the original ICANN directors; and a study of how to provide
> appropriately for input and influence into ICANN policy deliberations
> and decisions by the general Internet community.  Five At-Large
> Directors were selected in a global, direct election by 34,035 e-mail
> address holders, and seated in November 2000. The At-Large Study
> Committee (ALSC) submitted their report in November, 2001 and a
> subsequent implementation report in March 2002.
>
> That same month, the Board decided that "ICANN should have a robust At
> Large mechanism for meaningful, informed participation by Internet
> users of the kind recommended in the ALSC report."  To achieve this,
> the Board called "upon the ICANN community to devote sustained energy
> to the creation of At Large structures built upon bottom-up,
> self-organized, local Internet community institutions and other
> organizations that meet the general criteria of openness,
> participation, and self-sustainability, anticipating that most such
> entities are not ICANN-specific, but already serve their communities
> in broader ways."
>
> As stated in the "White Paper," issued by the U.S. Department of
> Commerce designating ICANN as the technical coordination body of the
> Internet, "The new corporation should operate as a private entity for
> the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. The development of
> sound, fair, and widely accepted policies for the management of the
> DNS will depend on input from the broad and growing community of
> Internet users."
> The issue of how to involve Internet users in ICANN has gone
> unresolved despite more than four years of debate (started before
> ICANN itself began), several studies, one global election of five
> At-Large Directors to ICANN's Board, and the recently completed ALSC
> reports. The Board took an important step towards resolving the issue
> with passage of its March 14 resolution calling for At-Large
> organizing and involvement in ICANN. Many details, however, remain
> unresolved and it is hoped that an emerging At-Large constituency can
> help settle, once and for all, the details of how ICANN achieves
> representation and participation of the world's individual Internet
> users.
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <--------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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