-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
All,
Thank you to Azucena and Gerry for their efforts in coordinating this
reply.
I've circulated the second revision within IETF circles, and I've
attached a further-annotated copy with specific comments.
In general, although we recognize that the ALSC has addressed the
PSO as a whole (through the PSO-PC), we find that they have requested
opinions and information that go beyond the scope of the PSO's
mandate. While the 4 SDO's might well achieve concensus on
our replies, we (IETF) feel it is inappropriate for the PSO as a
body to address the issues raised in this report in any more than
carefully measured tones. The IETF participants we've consulted feel
that such an approach is consistent with the PSO's chartered role.
Our impression from reading the draft is that there is less consensus
within the PSO, on some of the important points raised in the draft,
than the draft makes it appear. It would be unfair to the PSO
membership, and to the ALSC, to present those views as representing
PSO consensus.
Some of these outstanding issues are illustrated, in part, by the
IETF comments on the draft, included in blue in the attached html.
The particular questions of concern are the ones asking for opinions
on the structure of ICANN and individual participation. Even the
question of the current quality of functioning of the PSO itself,
while clearly within the PSO's scope, is addressed in the draft with
language that implies more consensus than may actually exist. The
issue in that area is that, as illustrated by some discussions over
the
last year or so, and even by this draft, there may be some
disagreement within the PSO about its appropriate scope. Without
such agreement, it is impossible to evaluate whether the PSO is
properly structured to fufill its role.
Therefore, our proposal is to have the PSO decline to comment on those
issues, and invite the individual SDO's to provide commentary if they
feel so inclined.
Leslie.
- --
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
"The best laid plans
are written in pencil."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQCVAwUBO5PjfS3JjoowQPElAQHalwQAvfkewy47reUGb/GuilY7g11EP5kmQ+Xv
h4i2/KiqInOzEuMUsAgqJh9NG2t2WtBk8pf4RmfMifICtp4NjRcDQhu2bJ1LBRH0
DiudzGTnUK6dilNvA1S86AmDnRQcAsWAmAuL7Cw1NuNCLmudLn6TbQdddln7odCA
9jxJxRnxc4k=
=khUE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Title: ANNEX
July 12, 2001
Draft comments from the Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO)
August 2001
(Contribution from ETSI)
(Note: the comments are inserted
within the original text)
(IETF comments are in blue)
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and
practice. But, in practice, there is."
Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut
Introduction
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.
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.
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 ."[1] (See Appendix A, "Brief Background")
Purpose
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."
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.
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.
Your Input is Needed
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.
Comment from PSO: With regard 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.
Replace with: Such "significant concerns"
regarding
organizational structure are not evident within
the PSO. The charter of the
PSO allows for additional members to be added
to the PSO, using criteria
and process defined within these documents.
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.
Comment from PSO: From the PSO perspective, our organization is working well and individuals can make their inputs, in the PSO website via the PSO Discussion e-mail list and attending the PSO General Assemblies. The technical scope of the PSO is such that most participants would have to have a significant technical background.
Propose adding: "ICANN should represent
a balance between representation by individuals (whether direct or indirect)
and representation by consensus organizations that can formulate
positions based in their technical
expertise (and which can confine themselves to positions consistent with
that expertise). That balance should probably tend rather more to
an
organizationally-based structure
as the bodies are required to provide consultation on
technical issues (e.g., the ASO
and, even more so, the PSO) than when consultation is needed on more general
policy issues. As was discussed at length when the PSO was assembled,
individuals, and individual technical opinions, are already well-represented
through the various SDO
bodies involved, each of which
has its own mechanisms for obtaining public input, mechanisms which its
constituents consider effective.
Our Initial Conclusion: Yes, Individuals Need A Voice in ICANN
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.
Comment from PSO: From the PSO perspective, Internet standards are already made with the aim to satisfy the broad interests of the users.
IETF: Drop this comment altogether. There is no specific request for input from the ALSC, and this "baits" the whole situation.
It is clear to us that there is 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.
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.
Comment from PSO: The PSO does not share that concern about itselfas we consider that all the PSO related issues are fully transparent and open to interested individuals as much as is the whole standards generation processes. Furthermore, some of these aspects have clear policy and regulatory implications (e.g. privacy).
Replace with: The PSO does
not share that concern about itself. The major role of the PSO is
seen
as using the resources of
the member organizations of the PSO to provide advice to
ICANN on matters where there is
a technical or protocol dimension. This ability to provide technical or
protocol advice, based on the expertise of the organizations involved,
is particularly important because some issues that appear to be policy
or public interest ones, including some of those mentioned above, have
very serious implications to Internet interoperability, stability, and
the avoidance of fragmentation.
The PSO must be structured to provide such advice accurately and efficiently.
The Process
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.
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.
Concept Papers to Follow
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.
Comment from PSO: 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. As stated before, individual participation is already possible in order to influence PSO decisions.
Replace with:
It could be inferred from this comment that
the Study Committee is
indicating an interest to determine how individuals
could directly
participate in the PSO's activities. Without
commenting on the broader
matter of At-Large participating in ICANN's
activities, from the more
restricted focus of the PSO's role some clarification
of the scope of such
a study is required. It is noted that the
PSO has some shared concerns
relating to the implications of such individual
participation on the role
and agenda of the PSO.
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"]
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:
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.
Comment from PSO: 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. However, as pointed out, the PSO is a somewhat different SO from the others in that it is comprised of Standards Development Organisations, and according to our current MoU, to become a member would indicate the need for the applicant organisation to show that it was responsible for the development of standards used on the internet. Facilities already exist for individuals to take part in the standards development process within the SDOs.
Replace with: This, too, is outside the
scope of the work of the PSO, and we decline to comment here. Perhaps
individual participating SDO's would be willing to offer their input.
Our effort to recommend any reconfiguration of Board membership is driven by several goals, including the need to:
Comment from PSO: 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 with the possibility of becoming a new member. The PSO MoU imposes certain criteria on a standards organisation wishing to become a PSO member (to be an international open body, to be involved on the production of IP protocol standards, to have open processes, etc).Comment: the 5th is not yet a formal request, and thus is better not mentioned. Replace with: "Within our understanding of the scope and the role of the PSO, the 4 member organizations of the PSO are satisfied with the processes and structures of the PSO. The PSO MoU imposes certain criteria on a standards organisation wishing to become a PSO member (to be an international open body, to be involved in the production of IP protocol standards,to have open processes, etc)."
Comment from PSO: The PSO has two exploder lists: one just for the members of the PSO Council which is very active. Those messages are normally posted after internal consultation from the council representatives within their own organization (IETF, ETSI, ITU, W3C). As for the exploder list open to public input, there is nearly no activity there except for the announcements made by the PSO Secretariat.Add: As discussed above, it is also unclear that individual input directly into the "PSO" or Protocol Council would serve either that SO or ICANN well. Legitimate technical input benefits from careful consensus review by the SDOs with expertise in the matters at
Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face meetings/teleconferences? How often are such meetings held?
Comment from PSO: 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 so.Add: The PSO considers that this fairly low level of attendance indicates that the member SDOs are doing their jobs of accumulating and representing the broad range of legitimate technical opinions that exist within the Internet community.
Comment from PSO: The reports of all the meetings and teleconferences of PSO are available in the ICANN web site. Comments from the PSO Council on matters of interest to the ICANN Board are forwarded by the PSO secretary directly to the ICANN staff. They are only available in English which is the working language of PSO and all its members.
Comment from PSO: Up to now, the PSO has not suffered any conflict of interests. A voting mechanism has been devised for use by the PSO Council in the event that consensus within the PSO Council cannot be achieved. Each of the four SDOs has its own mechanism for resolving conflicts of interest that may arise during standards development.Comment: conflict of interest is different than conflict of opinion. Perhaps instead:
Comment from PSO: Apart from comments made during the General Assembly, there has been no public input to the work of the PSO. For the PSO, "consensus" is understood as "lack of sustained objection". As for the issues that the PSO has dealt with since it was created, consensus has always been achieved. The PSO Council consists of 8 people, and so far has successfully operated without a formal chairman. All parties have agreed when consensus has been reached.
Comment from PSO: The PSO is fully supported by its own Secretariat which is provided and fully funded by one of the 4 member organizations in a rotating manner for 1 year. This model is working extremely well.
Comment from PSO: The PSO Secretary is formally accountable to the Head of the organisation providing the secretary for that year, but on a day to day basis, the responsibility is to the 2 members of council representing the secretary-providing organisation. 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.Add: Obviously, this mechanism does not contain procedural safeguards against misreporting of PSO positions by the secretariat, although the general openness of the ICANN process and a history of informal communications between members of the various SDOs andICANN staff and Board members lower the odds that such an abuse would go undetected. The PSO does not believe it would benefit anyone to set
Comment from PSO: The PSO website is very well organised with all the information easily found. In addition, during the General Assembly, members of the ICANN Board and staff are invited to attend in order to facilitate the discussion on any "hot issues". English is the only language.
Comment from PSO: Considering that members of the PSO should be international standards organizations (both "de facto" and "de jure"), 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. The PSO Council is of the opinion that no more additional SOs are needed, although a re-organisation of the ASO and DNSO according to their own wishes could be beneficial to opening up their work to that of individuals or User Groups.IETF: Note that the question is asking about (ICANN) Support Organizations, or sibling organizations to the PSO, not PSO constituent SDO's (Standards Development Organizations). The PSO should decline to comment on the detail of the question, although the following general observation would be relevant and timely: "However, ICANN should be concerned that the addition of more SOs, or SO reorganizations, or additional at-large representation, not change the balance of the Board in ways that would interfere with ICANN's essentially administrative and technical mission."
Comment from PSO: The present PSO mechanisms allow individual contributions to be made. An additional source of individual input direct to ICANN can be considered through the use of User Associations or the ISOC.IETF: The PSO should decline to comment. ("It is outside the scope of the work of the PSO to comment upon ICANN organization. Perhaps individual participating SDO's would have comments for you.").
Comment from PSO: 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 community.IETF: The PSO should decline to comment. ("It is outside the scope of the work of the PSO to comment upon ICANN organization. Perhaps individual participating SDO's would have comments for you.").
Comment from PSO: The PSO would recommend the consensus development processes used by the four member SDOs (IETF, ITU, ETSI, W3C) as these are similar to those of other SDOs.IETF: The PSO should decline to comment. ("It is outside the scope of the work of the PSO to comment upon ICANN organization. Perhaps individual participating SDO's would have comments for you."). Again, this is talking about consensus between ICANN SO's (and individual participants), not within the PSO.
- 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?
Comment from PSO: The Directors selected by individual internet users should be a minority of the total number. 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 be encouraged to express their views by organised representation in the Supporting Organizations. The current figure of 5 At Large Board members seems to work, and therefore we do not see reasons to change it. Any additional ICANN Board members from the user community, to a maximum of 4, should come from representatives of User Associations or the ISOC. All SOs should have the responsibility to nominate 3 ICANN Board members, so if the number of SOs increases from its present value of 3 then the number of ICANN Board members should increase at the rate of 3 per SO.IETF: The PSO should decline to comment. ("It is outside the scope of the work of the PSO to comment upon ICANN organization. Perhaps individual participating SDO's would have comments for you."). The IETF does, however, note that the structure of ICANN is based on a careful balance among SOs and the interests represented by
Comment from the PSO: The 5 At Large Directors should be directly elected. The other 4 should be indirectly elected via legally established User Associations or ISOC. The other 9 Directors (or 12 in future) should be indirectly elected by the Supporting Organisations as at present. For the 5 At Large candidates, the current nomination process should be followed, but it should be examined to see if any improvements could be made. The requirement for self-nominated candidates to have a certain percentage of regional support is difficult to verify. Full CVs and Mission Statements are to be supplied as a minimum, and employees of large companies should not be allowed to stand, either as one of the 5 or as one of the 4 User Association members. For the PSO, there is a process of calling for candidates, and this should be followed by the User Associations, ISOC, and all other SOs. The voting process has to be open for the 5 At Large candidates. The method used last year was a step in the right direction, but the need to activate one?s vote lost many potential voters. A much simpler voting process can be devised with the same level of protection from multiple voting. The process should ensure that no more than 2 Directors occupying the total of 9 At Large seats come from the same geographical region. For the PSO we use consensus based decision making following a detailed analysis of the candidates? professional backgrounds and mission statements - this is recommended to all other groups. The ability to vote for the 5 At Large Directors should be as at present, that is all who have an e-mail address.IETF: The PSO should decline to comment. ("It is outside the scope of the work of the PSO to comment upon ICANN organization. Perhaps individual participating SDO's would have comments for you.").
Comment from PSO: For the direct elections of the At Large representatives, some effort should be made to choose areas with similar Internet user population, rather than pure geographical areas. This would mean combining some geographical regions and splitting some other ones to get a more balanced number of potential voters, as is done for certain Parliamentary systems. It is not population which matters, but internet user population.IETF: The PSO should decline to comment. ("It is outside the scope of the work of the PSO to comment upon ICANN organization. Perhaps individual participating SDO's would have comments for you.").
Comment from PSO: For the 5 directly elected At Large Directors, the CVs and Mission Statements must be checked in a valid but unbiased way before they are allowed to stand as a candidate for Director. For candidates from User Associations and ISOC, the structure and rules of these bodies ensures a good level of knowledge, commitment and serious representation. ICANN should consider a mechanism for replacing a Director after only one or two years, from whichever source they became a Director, if he or she fails to live up to the expectations of the rest of the ICANN Board.IETF: The PSO should decline to comment. ("It is outside the scope of the work of the PSO to comment upon ICANN organization. Perhaps individual participating SDO's would have comments for you.").
Comment from PSO: The PSO encourages the use in ICANN of all the electronic tools plus teleconference and remote participation tools available in the market in order to ease the knowledge and participation of final users. These can be supplemented by local newspaper/TV advertising if thought necessary in certain parts of the world, to ensure that everyone who wants to knows that an At Large election is taking place. As far as privacy is concerned, the individual who stands must be clear that his private life will not remain private, and this should be taken into account when he/she offers to stand. The candidate should be allowed to use whichever language he/she feels is likely to get them the greatest number of votes, taking into account the region in which they are standing.IETF: The PSO should decline to comment on the issue, beyond the standard technical advice we might provide to ICANN itself. That is, descriptive of technology, not prescriptive of the activity or potential ramifications. ("It is outside the scope of the work of the PSO to comment upon ICANN organization. Perhaps individual participating SDO's would have comments for you."). If any response is offered, retain the first sentence and add "The PSO wishes to note, however, that reliance on "high tech"
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 as a whole . 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.
Please email your comments to us at comments@atlargestudy.org or send them to our on-line forum at http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml .
Thank you for your consideration and participation.
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.