Dear Mrs. Michel, On behalf of the Protocol Council I would like to inform you on the following: The PSO PC has not reached consensus on comments to the ALSC document. The comments received are as follows: - Comments from IETF to the ALSC Draft Report on ICANN At-Large Membership: The IETF has reviewed the ALSC report, and have the following observations to offer: (i) There are no technical issues, in the Internet protocol or operations sense, in whether or not there is an at large membership. (ii) ICANN is structured around a careful balance between technical and operational input. Decisions that change the balance, on the Board or elsewhere, need to be considered very carefully and examined for unintentional side effects. (iii) While the ALSC has clearly examined the technical requirements and potential for abuse in e-mail based ALSO registration, we nevertheless observe that any at large effort, especially one based on direct voting, is going to be subject to considerable problems of authentication and certification (that the same person does not appear multiple times). If the intent is to give the at large effort sufficient voting leverage, efforts at capture are almost inevitable. While the ALSC report concludes that this is a problem for e-mail based voter registration, it is our opinion that existing technical systems are not sufficient for precluding the same behaviour in individual domain registration based systems. (iv) If ICANN at large voting "membership" is important, tying it to second- or third-level domain name registrations could lead to the creation of more registrations that are not tied to functioning domains. It would then also tend to further flatten the tree. Neither of these is desirable. - Comments from ETSI to the ALSC Draft Report on ICANN At-Large Membership Date: 16-10-01 >ETSI has analysed the comprehensive document drafted by the ALSC. > >Firstly, ETSI wants to notify that no part of the above referenced >document has a direct impact on technical issues neither for the Internet >Protocol nor for the operation of the Internet. Potential indirect impact >is clearly identified in our comments. > >Some of the content of the ALSC document has an impact on the structure of >ICANN and therefore affects the PSO as ICANN Supporting Organization and >the comments contained herein are presented under this view. > >¨ ETSI supports the creation of an At Large Supporting Organization >to channel the involvement of At Large in the ICANN structure as it is in >line with the approach followed to set up the other existing 3 SOs. >¨ ETSI advices caution and care in the implementation of the proposed >ALSO membership restricted to "those individuals holding a domain name". >While the ALSC has clearly examined the technical requirements and >potential for abuse in e-mail based ALSO registration, we nevertheless >observe that any choice to allow direct voting by the At Large members, is >going to be subject to considerable problems of authentication and >certification (that the same person does not appear multiple times). If >the intent is to give the at large effort sufficient voting leverage, >efforts at capture are almost inevitable. While the ALSC report concludes >that this is a problem for e-mail based voter registration, it is our >opinion that existing technical systems are not sufficient for precluding >the same behaviour in individual domain registration based systems. >¨ ETSI expresses concern for the technical implications in the DNS of >the need to hold a domain name in order to get At Large voting rights. >This choice could lead to the creation of more registrations that are not >tied up to functioning domains. The technical purpose of the DNS is >mapping from names to hosts. There is no evidence that the, somehow >artificial, increase of second level domain names within the DNS tree >would not create technical problems. >¨ Furthermore, ETSI considers that it would be beneficial for the >Internet community to allow other means to become "At Large member" such >as being an individual member of a national, regional or international >recognised User Association not linked to commercial businesses. This >alternative will not bring the undesirable side effects of the one linked >to the domain name registration. >¨ As for the number of seats in the ICANN Board that this proposed >new Supporting Organization should have, ETSI considers that it should be >identical to those assigned to the other ICANN SOs (presently 3 seats per >SO, further reconsideration of this number is acceptable). No value added >is identified for increasing the number of seats for any of the SOs >(including the proposed ALSO) as those individuals elected would hold, >anyhow, the representation of the whole SO. The overhead cost associated >with an increase of the ICANN Board seats should be carefully considered. >¨ Also, ETSI believes that ICANN is structured around a careful >balance between technical and operational input. Decisions that change the >balance, on the Board or elsewhere, need to be considered very carefully >and examined for unintentional side effects. >¨ Regarding the duration of the terms of office of the ICANN Board >members representing the ALSO, ETSI supports an identical model to the one >followed so far by the existing 3 SOs. >¨ ETSI supports the target of having this new ALSO self-funded, >self-organising and transparent, the way the PSO is. Initial funds and >outreach from ICANN to start up the process is acceptable. >¨ ETSI supports the proposal made in the document of increasing the >relationship and exchange of views between the ICANN Supporting >Organizations, including the proposed new one, the ALSO. - ITU-T did not provide any additional comments - W3C did not provide any comments