[ICANN-EU] Organizing the ICANN Membership: Intermediate Institutions

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

Dear Members of ICANN-EU,

Thank you for engaging in a most enlightening discussion!

This is a draft version of the next issue of Cyber-Federalist.  It deals
with issues that have been discussed on this list. 

I will revise this and post it tomorrow (Tuesday). I welcome any comments!

Thank you.

Hans Klein

===========================================

Organizing the ICANN Membership: Intermediate Institutions

Last week the At Large membership activation ended, with the final member
count at 76,504.  Beginning on October 1 those 76,504 members will elect 5
At Large Directors.

How will this membership function?  How will 76,504 voters connect with 5
Directors?  Even as our attention now turns to the October elections, it is
important to think of the long-term organization of the At Large Membership. 

In this essay I discuss possible INTERMEDIATE INSTITUTIONS to connect
voters with directors.  Intermediate institutions would allow the At Large
membership to function even after the election is over.

What Functions Need to be Performed?
====================================
Elections perform two basic functions: input and accountability.  On the
one hand, voters can elect directors who bring their concerns and values to
the Board.  On the other hand, voters can vote out those directors who do
not represent them effectively.

However, elections occur at two-year intervals.  In the interim, these
functions need to be performed by other means.  Two other possible
mechanisms might be an "At Large Assembly" and an "At Large Forum."

At Large Assembly
=================
Between the voters and the directors there could be a representative
organization similar to the "councils" in the Supporting Organizations
(SO). The SO councils propose policies and ultimately elect directors.

An At Large Council was once proposed, but it was seen as potentially
weakening members' legal rights and was abandoned.  The whole notion of an
At Large "council" fell into disrepute.

Nonetheless, some kind of intermediate body could still be useful, both to
voters and to directors.  An At Large *assembly* could promote a connection
with voters, soliciting input, distilling it into proposals, and
communicating regularly to directors.  Likewise, such an assembly could
hold directors accountable, informing voters when questionable actions have
taken place and giving directors feedback on their actions.  An At Large
Assembly could share some of the work of governance and provide a sounding
board for ideas before they are implemented.

However, the process for creating such a body is itself difficult.  What
representation mechanisms should be used?  How many members should there
be?  Before attempting to create an assembly, it might be easier to start
with a simple forum.

At Large Forum
==============
In Europe, ICANN members have succeeded in establishing one list as the
main forum for their region. It serves as the definitive location for
meeting other members, discussing issues, and disseminating news.  Here one
can find most leading activists.  One can also find many Board candidates
participating in the forum.

Once the European director is elected, it seems likely that the forum will
continue, allowing participants to provide input and oversight of elected
officials.  Furthermore, the entire list is archived on the web, so it
provides a public record of discussions and commitments.

The forum is "icann-eu."  It provides a promising first step towards a
European regional assembly. In the self-organizing model so familiar on the
Internet, the creation of a definitive forum can allow consensus to develop
about more ambitious goals.  A regional forum can make possible the
creation of a regional assembly.  If enough regions move in this direction,
it may be possible to create a global At Large Assembly.

To the best of this writer's knowledge, no other region has a definitive
regional forum like "icann-eu."  True, ICANN now offers the "Q+A" forum for
elections.  However, that forum is difficult to use and is specific for the
election.  Likewise, the "icann-announce" list shares information to
members, but it is under the exclusive control of ICANN.

In North America, no listserv provides the definitive public forum.  There
are, however, at least three relevant lists. Many activists subscribe to
the Boston Working Group list ("bwg"), but it is a closed list with few
subscribers. The "ador-doc" list is not well known, but it open and
archived.  Perhaps the closest thing to a regional forum is the
International Forum for the White Paper (IFWP), which was intensively used
a few years ago but which is now little employed.  Without a definitive
North American forum, the process of self-organization for the region could
suffer.

Investigations in other regions have identified no other regional forums.
In Asia there is the  "icann-asia-l" list hosted by JCA-NET in Japan, but
discussion there is light.  The "icann-d" list in Japan may be more active,
but it is in Japanese language.  In Africa and Latin America I know of no
lists.  Significantly, even the ICANN Q+A Forum for Latin America has not
received a single posting at the time of this writing.

There are a few global lists as well, although none of them have gained
recognition as the definitive list. The Civil Society Internet Forum hosts
one list.  The Unit for Internet Studies hosts another, on which policy
researchers from around the world communicate.  The "icann-candidates" list
attempted to define a forum for all Board candidates, but it has not had
much discussion.

Thus "icann-eu" seems to be the most promising model for regional
self-organization. Activists and board candidates subscribe to it, so
discussions there are important.  Moreover, the list is archived on the
web, so it constitutes a discussion of record.

Establishing Regional Forums
============================
It is in the collective interest of every region to establish a forum.
ICANN does not create such lists, but they can be created by members and
board candidates on their own.

All board candidates benefit from a regional forum.  It allows them to
publicly debate issues and make contact with voters.  If board candidates
can agree among themselves on a common forum, they can announce it on their
web page and in the ICANN Q+A Forum.  Once defined, such a list is likely
to attract more subscribers and so grow into a definitive forum.  The
election period provides favorable conditions to establish regional forums,
because members and candidates are hungry for information.

It seems to matter little which organization hosts a region's forum. As
long as the list is open to all subscribers, hosting a list seems to confer
little control over the process. Furthermore, professional norms for
disinterested list hosting are well-established, so instances of abuse are
very rare.  A bigger problem is that of excessive or rude postings, but
these can often be solved by filters installed on one's own computer.  (Mr.
Jeff Williams posts as frequently in Europe as in the U.S.!)

It simply remains for an organization with listserv and archiving
capabilities to work with Board candidates to define a regional list.   A
few weeks remain to put regional lists in place.

>From Regional Forum to Regional Assembly
========================================
Regional forums provide the means for further development. Following the
elections, participants may want to discuss the creation of a regional
Assembly with designated members.  That might require writing some kind of
charter that defines how the Assembly would be constituted, how decisions
would be made, and so on.  The regional assembly would be a more formal
intermediate institution between members and directors.

As described here, this process is roughly similar to that used to write
the charters for the ICANN Supporting Organizations (SO).  Charters for
those councils are now part of the ICANN bylaws (See
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI).

It might be possible to create such intermediate institutions in time for
the ICANN Board meeting in Los Angeles in November.  Regional listservs
could be in place by the time of the October elections.  That would leave
four weeks to the Los Angeles Board meeting.  In those four weeks, it might
be possible for at least some regions to define assemblies. Ultimately, it
might be possible to create an At Large Assembly for all five regions.  

It would be difficult -- but not impossible -- to have 5 regional
assemblies and one global At Large Assembly in place by November.  The Los
Angeles Board meeting could see the launch of intermediate institutions
that firmly link ICANN directors to the membership.  That would be good for
the members, good for the directors, and good for democracy in cyberspace!


Cited Lists
===========
icann-eu  -- http://www.fitug.de/icann-europe/
BWG  -- 
ADORE  - http://www.domain-owners.org
IFWP  -- 
ICANN Q+A Forum  -- http://members.icann.org/qa.html
icann-announce  -- http://www.icann.org/announcements/
icann-asia-l  -- icann-asia-l@mail.jca.apc.org
icann-de  -- http://www.nic.ad.jp/jp/member/ml/icann-d/
csif-l  -- http://www.civilsocietyinternetforum.org/lists.html
Unit for Internet Studies  -- http://www.internetstudies.org/
icann-candidates  -- http://www.egroups.com/icann-candidates

###