Dear PSO PC colleagues,
You may remember that I volunteered to prepare a draft response to the At
Large Discussion Paper submitted by the chairman of the ALSC for our
consideration and comments.
Attached you can find my "homework". I have inserted my proposed comments in
between the paragraphs of the original At Large document.
I kindly ask you to provide me with your comments before Friday the 31st
August to give me one working day to consolidate them and to have a final
version ready for approval in our next teleconference on Tuesday the 4th
September.
The ALSC will have their next meeting in Montevideo on the 7th September and
our paper will then reach them on time.
Kind regards,
Azucena
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage Express 2.0">
<title>Discussion Paper 1 </title>
<!-- header -->
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p align="center"><br>
<!-- body table --></p>
<div align="center"><center>
<table border="0" width="90%">
<tr>
<td><p align="center">At-Large Membership Study Committee
Discussion Paper #1 </p>
<p align="center">July 12, 2001 </p>
<p align="center"> <font color="#FF0000" size="4"><strong>Draft
comments from the Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO)</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#FF0000" size="4"><strong>August
2001</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#FF0000" size="4"><em><strong>(Note:
the comments are inserted within the original text)</strong></em></font></p>
<p align="center">"In theory, there is no difference
between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."
<br>
Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut </p>
<p><u>Introduction </u></p>
<p>Over the last two and a half years, ICANN has made
considerable progress towards achieving the objectives
for which it was formed, including providing coordinated
advice on technical management of the DNS and IP
addresses, launching a process for implementing new TLDs,
and supporting the creation of new regional internet
registries. </p>
<p>However, there is concern by some that ICANN still
lacks the perceived legitimacy and accountability to a
broad public that will enable it to operate effectively
and flexibly as the Internet scales up and as ICANN's
policies affect an ever broader and less technically
oriented Internet community. </p>
<p>In order to help fulfill ICANN's promise of
accountability, the ICANN Board created the At-Large
Membership Study Committee (ALSC) earlier this year to
conduct a complete review of the At-Large (individual
Internet user) membership concept and its structure and
processes, and to "achieve a broad consensus on
effective means by which the diverse global Internet
communities and individual stakeholders may participate
in ICANN's policy development, deliberations, and actions
<font size="2" face="arial">."[1] </font>(See
Appendix A, "Brief Background") </p>
<p><u>Purpose </u></p>
<p>We need to keep in mind that ICANN is a very young
international entity that faces both high expectations
and operational challenges as one of the world's most
unusual "Internet start-ups." </p>
<p>Over the last several months, in order to understand
ICANN and its structure and processes, the ALSC has read
through the volumes of publicly available discussions and
material surrounding its history, form and function, and
its controversy. We also have reviewed numerous emailed
views and participated in several face-to-face
discussions (in our "outreach" events and in
individual meetings), and listened to those of you who
have shared your thoughts and views on how we might
address our task and provided feedback on the questions
we have asked. </p>
<p>While we will continue to listen to everyone's input,
work with other related review efforts, and keep an open
mind, it is now time for us to begin to formulate and
share our own thoughts with the goal of encouraging more
specific feedback. That is the purpose of this Discussion
Paper and the specific concept papers we will shortly
post. </p>
<p><u>Your Input is Needed </u></p>
<p>We have received clear indications that, as part of
our efforts to achieve a consensus on how the various
Internet communities and stakeholders should be involved
in ICANN, our recommendations should not take ICANN's
current organizational structure as an unalterable
premise. The ongoing DNSO review[2] and the recent "Country
Code Supporting Organization Statement,"[3] indicate
that there are significant concerns within these groups,
and perhaps among others, that clearly need to be
addressed. </p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>With
regards to the structure of the PSO, it seems to be good
enough to fulfil its obligations. The addition of some
other standards bodies is allowed by the existing PSO MoU
and may happen in the short term.</font></p>
<p>Specifically, we need your input on which current
ICANN structures are working well and which are not, and
the causes of any current "problems" or "inadequacies".
We also welcome your constructive ideas on solutions.
Clearly any changes to existing ICANN organizational
structure need to adequately accommodate the role of the
At-Large and the overall structure of ICANN, and vice
versa. We recognize that a consensus on a new approach to
individual participation and representation in ICANN must
be developed in close coordination with the existing
ICANN organizations and constituencies, and with
extensive input from all interested individuals. We hope
this discussion paper and subsequent discussion will
foster such collaboration and result in better outcomes. </p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>From
the own PSO perspective, our organization is working well
and individuals can make their inputs in the PSO website
and attending the PSO General Assemblies. The technical
scope of the PSO somehow makes useless the access of
individuals not having a minimum technical background.
Additionaly and, whilst the 4 PSO member organizations
have different scope and bylaws, individuals can be part
of their membership either directly (IETF, W3C), via
national or international User Associations (ETSI) or via
national administrations (ITU).</font></p>
<p><u>Our Initial Conclusion: Yes, Individuals Need A
Voice in ICANN </u></p>
<p>After broad outreach and deliberation, the ALSC has
come to the initial position that some form of structured
involvement of individual Internet users in ICANN policy
formulation and decision-making is needed, along with
representation of individual Internet users on ICANN's
Board. While this may appear obvious to some, we did not
want to jump to conclusions without considering a full
range of arguments. </p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>From
the PSO perspective, all the protocol standards are made
by the Internet industry with the idea in mind of serving
the interest of the final users. </font></p>
<p>It is clear to us that there <i>is </i>a "public
interest" responsibility vested in ICANN, and
therefore some role for individuals (as well as non-commercial
interests, etc.) is appropriate. In essence, ICANN needs
to be accountable not just to those people whose daily
work concerns ICANN's activities (and who may be
Supporting Organization members), but also those who are
affected by its actions but whose daily focus is
elsewhere. Actions ICANN takes within its seemingly
narrow technical and administrative mission can affect (and
generate interest among) the world's individual Internet
users in a myriad of ways. These users hold a variety of
values and represent interests that may be personal,
political or economic. They care about issues such as
access to domain names in non-Latin characters, the
potential use of IP addresses and domain names for
identification or location of individuals and groups, the
mapping of telephone numbers to Internet addresses,
competition and choice (or not) in the provision of
various services provided by independent parties under
contract to ICANN, domain-name intellectual property
issues, and the like. </p>
<p>There is concern, however, that the existing ICANN
policy development and decision-making structure has not
fulfilled expectations of involving and representing
these various individuals and their interests. </p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The PSO
does not share that concern as we consider that all the
PSO related issues are fully transparent opened to
interested individuals as much as the whole standards
generation processes. </font></p>
<p><u>The Process </u></p>
<p>In reviewing numerous ICANN discussions and resulting
decisions, we found it difficult to follow the documented
"consensus" decision-making process. In many
instances, it is unclear how the input into a particular
"open process" decision was duly considered,
documented and assimilated. We want to ensure that all
interested individuals have an opportunity to participate
fully in "bottom-up ICANN consensus development."
And we want to ensure that there is a mechanism that will
make this possible. There certainly is an opportunity for
ICANN, potentially through an At-Large membership, to
organize individuals' energy and experience in a more
productive manner - making the issues intelligible to a
broader community and giving individuals a way to turn
their feedback into tangible influence in an accountable,
transparent and predictable manner. </p>
<p>In making recommendations on the role of an At Large
membership in ICANN, our intention is to help create a
policy and decision-making structure and process within
ICANN that fosters understanding and accommodation
between various constituencies, including individual
Internet users. We are striving to recommend such a
structure and process to help ensure that ICANN's
policies truly reflect the needs, interests and rights of
all its stakeholders - including those who may not like
its policies but who will ideally feel that at least
their arguments were understood and fairly considered. </p>
<p><u>Concept Papers to Follow </u></p>
<p>Our charge to conduct a comprehensive study and to
"consider the proper relationship between an At-Large
membership and ICANN's three Supporting Organizations,"[1]
has led us to begin development, in conjunction with the
affected communities, of recommendations for individual
Internet user participation in ICANN. </p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The PSO
would welcome a clarification on whether the At-Large
members would like to directly participate in the PSO or
are just concerned about getting seats in the ICANN Board.
If the interest of the At Large is to directly
participate in the PSO or get any kind of recognition as
"PSO members" this would imply a change on the
PSO MoU which would raise important problems. </font></p>
<p>We welcome input to help further our understanding of
how the existing ICANN policy development and decision-making
structure has (or has not) fulfilled expectations of
involving and representing all relevant stakeholders. We
also look forward to receiving any ideas that might
improve the ICANN process and structure and individuals'
role within it. To foster constructive discussion, and to
focus on concrete possibilities - solutions rather than
opinions and goals - we are developing concept papers for
your review. [See Appendix B, "Proposed Schedule of
ALSC Activities"] </p>
<p>We are particularly interested in hearing your views
on what would constitute a successful structure and
process for individual Internet user participation. Thus
far, our view is that a successful structure and process
should: </p>
<ul>
<li>Fulfill ICANN's mission of acting in the public's
interest in its administration of the Internet's
technical name and numbering infrastructure, and
balance the commercial and institutional
interests that are already well represented
within the organization. </li>
<li>Ensure that ICANN operates in a manner that is
stable, accountable, transparent, and predictable.
</li>
<li>Increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance
by fulfilling ICANN's goal of having its
decisions supported by a broad and documented
consensus among affected parties. </li>
<li>Engender knowledge within, and support from,
interested communities by giving them a
demonstrable way of participating and affecting
policy. </li>
<li>Inject the necessary public interest perspectives
into coordination of relevant ICANN issues. This
includes bringing non-technical considerations to
bear on technical decisions, as well as providing
ICANN with advance warning of issues that have
the potential of being critical or controversial
in the "non-technical" world. </li>
<li>Encourage both the "non-technical" and
"technical" communities to explain
their concerns and the impact of their work more
effectively to the broader public. </li>
</ul>
<p> Regardless of how individual involvement is
ultimately achieved, it is reasonable to expect that
ICANN's Board will continue to be the focal point for
critical decisions. Therefore, Board representation of
individual Internet users also must be addressed, and we
are eager to hear your views on how this might be
achieved. </p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The PSO
would welcome a clarification on whether or not the At-Large
members are just interested on getting elected
individuals directly into the ICANN Board. Considering
that many of the issues are discussed and defined in each
of the Supporting Organizations, an alternative model
could be for the At-Large to be proactive in one or all
of the SOs and from there to influence ICANN and the
ICANN Board. </font></p>
<p>Our effort to recommend any reconfiguration of Board
membership is driven by several goals, including the need
to: </p>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>Fulfill ICANN's commitment to greater
accountability of the Board of Directors to the
Internet community. </li>
<li>Ensure "users' voices" are represented
in ICANN's decisions. </li>
<li>Represent the diverse interests of those affected
by ICANN decisions. </li>
<li>Select high-quality Board members capable of
understanding and fulfilling ICANN's
responsibilities. </li>
<li>Avoid "capture" of the Board through
disproportionate and opaque representation of any
one organization or interest group or community. </li>
<li>Ensure the Board Members work together
effectively to fulfill its responsibilities. </li>
</ul>
<p>In considering participation and Board representation,
your input is especially needed on both factual questions
and normative issues that, for us, remain unresolved,
including (but not limited to): </p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>Here
there are the answers from the PSO:</font></p>
<ul>
<li>Within each Supporting Organization, are the
existing processes and structures meeting the
expectations of their participants? What aspects
of the process are working well? How can existing
processes be improved? Are all stakeholders/communities
adequately represented? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
4 member organizations of the PSO are satisfied with
the processes and structures of the PSO. A 5th
standards body is approaching the PSO to become a new
member. The PSO MoU does not imposse any restrictions
to the number of standards organizations within the
PSO but imposses certain criteria to become PSO
member (to be an international open body, to be
involved on the production of IP protocol standards,
to have open processes ,...). </font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>In order to gauge the level of participation and
activity in ICANN's existing communities, as
represented by their mailing lists, what are the
basic statistics of these lists (e.g. number of
participants, demographics, frequency of posting
etc.)? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
PSO has two exploder lists: one just for the members
of the PSO Council which holds a good activity with
some 30 messages per week. Those messages are normaly
posted after internal consultation from the council
repreentative within its own organization (IETF, ETSI,
ITU, W3C). As per the exploder list open to public
input, there is nearly no activity there except the
announcements made by the PSO Secretariat.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face
meetings/teleconferences? How often are such
meetings held? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
PSO holds a public meeting per year: the General
Assembly. The average attendance is 60 people. The
PSO Council (8 members) meets by teleconference every
month or 2 months.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>How are the results of the email discussions,
teleconferences, and face-to-face meetings
summarized, documented and forwarded for
consideration by other ICANN participants? What
working languages are used? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
reports of all the meetings and teleconferences of
PSO are available in the ICANN web site. They are
only available in English which is the working
language of PSO and all its members. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>What conflict-of-interest provisions exist within
each of the existing Supporting Organizations?</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>Up
to now, the PSO has not suffered any conflict of
interests.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>What mechanisms exist to demonstrate that due
weight is given to input provided to each of the
Supporting Organizations? What is the Supporting
Organizations' operational definition of "consensus"?
If consensus is/is not possible, are the points
of agreement and disagreement, rationale, etc.
summarized and documented? What/who determines if
consensus has been reached?</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>For
the PSO, "consensus" is understood as
"lack of substained objection". As for the
issues that the PSO has dealt with since it was
created, consensus has always been achieved.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>How much can be expected to be achieved from
purely voluntary ICANN participation? What might
the role of a professional secretariat/support
staff for the Supporting Organizations play in
facilitating participation and deliberation? How
might such staff be funded? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
PSO is fully supported by its own Secretariat which
is provided and fully funded by one of the 4 members
organizations in a rotating manner during 1 year.
This model is working extremely well.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Who is staff accountable to (and who should staff
be accountable to)? What is the nature of the
relationship between ICANN staff and the existing
Supporting Organizations? What protocol governs
their interactions and priorities?.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
ICANN staff interacts with the PSO via the PSO
Secretariat or directly by e-mail with the PSO
Council members and the PSO public exploder. The
bilateral relationship needs improvement and measures
have been taken to improve it. The PSO does not take
any resource from the ICANN staff.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Other than reading through relevant mailing list
archives, what other resources exist that make
understanding the issues being discussed in ICANN
more accessible? In which languages are such
materials produced?</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
PSO website is very well organised with all the
information easily found. English is the only
language.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>How should existing and potential constituencies
be organized into Supporting Organizations or
other entities such as interest groups, political
parties, etc. </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>Considering
that members of the PSO should be international
standards organizations (both "de facto"
and "de iure"), it is not easy to make
political parties or groups of other nature members
of the PSO. Nevertheless, the 4 member organizations
have open means to seek participation of a broad
audience of technical experts and this is the right
way to make useful inputs to the PSO.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>How can individuals be encouraged to self-organize
without ICANN's direct involvement? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>Historically,
individuals using certain services organise
themselves by creating "User Associations"
of national or international scope. At this moment of
time "Internet Users Associations" exist in
nearly all countries and this could be the proper
path to follow to get a well organised At Large
community able to influence the ICANN Supporting
Organizations.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>What would be each entity's role, authority, and
funding source? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
PSO is quite satisfied with its present role,
authority and funding source (its own member
organizations) but respects any other model that may
be followed by the other SOs and the At-Large .</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>What (if any) specific consensus development
processes should be recommended? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>No
recommendatins from the PSO.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Should Directors selected by individual Internet
users be a majority or minority of the Board
members? How should Board seats be allocated?
Should the current balance of Directors (i.e. 9
from the SOs and 9 from At-Large) be kept? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
existing Supporting Organizations cover the whole
scope of ICANN and they all are organizations with
open and transparent methods of work. The individuals
having an interest and at least a basic knowledge of
the ICANN role, should express their views by
organised representation in the Supporting
Organizations. Once this target is achieved, then the
ICANN Board should just reflect the own structure of
ICANN with members elected by each of the Supporting
Organizations. On the meantime and, while the At
Large can ensure proper participationin the SOs, a
compromise could be found with 20% of the Board
memebrs to be elected by nationaly or internationally
recognised Internet Users Associations and the other
80% elected by the SOs. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Should elections of Directors be direct or
indirect (or a combination)? How should
candidates be nominated? What voting procedures
should be used? Who should have the ability to
vote? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>As
for the nomination, the PSO is in favour of keeping
the present rules with the candidates being nominated
by the members of the SOs and the User Associations
for the At Large seats (no sel-nomination allowed).
As for the election, we consider that the pure direct
voting is very much time and resouces consuming and
with unclear democratic and truly representative
outputs. The PSO is in favour of consensus based
decisions within each SO acccording to open and clear
rules for analysis of the candidates. Similar
exercesie but within User Associations should be
conducted to fill up the "At Large Board seats"
(while existing as such).</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>If direct elections are recommended, should they
be held among particular groupings of Internet
users, or should they be geographic or issue-based
(including issue or agenda-driven "parties")?
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
PSO favours indirect elections via Internet Users
Associations. Geopraphic parameters should be of
secondary importance but nevertheless taken into
account when building consensus.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Should some demonstration of commitment be
required for participation in elections (such as
requirements based on knowledge, participation,
or money)? </li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
PSO understands that the Users Associations model
ensures a good level of commitment, knowledge and
seriousness. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>How can individual users be informed about ICANN?
How can candidates for election and interest
groups in any form communicate with ICANN's
"At-Large members"? Relevant issues
include privacy, language, Net access (use of Web
vs. e-mail) and others.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><u>Comment from PSO: </u>The
PSO encourages the use in ICANN of all the electronic
tools plus teleconference and remote participation
tools avilable in the market in order to ease the
knowledge and participation of final users.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="mailto:comments@atlargestudy.org">Comments@atlargestudy.org
</a></p>
<p>In making any recommendations to the ICANN Board, we
want to ensure that we adequately address the role of an
At-Large membership within the ICANN structure <i>as a
whole </i>. We are optimistic that mechanisms with
individual involvement can be found that will enable
ICANN to develop balanced and well-considered policies
for Internet domain names, IP address numbers, protocol
parameter and port numbers, with the consent of those who
have the responsibility to implement them for the benefit
of the world's Internet community. </p>
<p>Please email your comments to us at <a
href="mailto:comments@atlargestudy.org">comments@atlargestudy.org
</a>or send them to our on-line forum at <a
href="http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml">http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml
</a>. </p>
<p>Thank you for your consideration and participation. </p>
<p>The At-Large Study Committee: Carl Bildt (Chair),
Chuck Costello (Vice Chair), Pierre Dandjinou, Esther
Dyson, Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu, Thomas Niles, Oscar
Robles, and Pindar Wong (Vice Chair). Denise Michel,
Executive Director. </p>
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div>
<p align="center"> </p>
</body>
</html>
*************************************************
Azucena Hernandez
Telefonica
Desarrollo de Red
c/ Emilio Vargas, 4. E-28043-MADRID
Tel: +34 91 5846842
Fax: +34 91 5846843
GSM: +34 609 425506
E-Mail: azucena.hernandez@telefonica.es
************************************************