-----Original Message-----
From: Livia Rosu Lunguran
Sent: 31 July 2001 14:48
To: 'cbildt@atlargestudy.org'
Cc: 'vladmir.androuchko@itu.int'
Dear Mr. Bildt,
I would hereby like to inform you that the PSO Protocol Council is currently
analyzing the At-Large membership Discussion Paper and will inform you on
the progress being made.
Best regards,
Livia Rosu
PSO-PC Secretary
-----Original Message-----
>Return-Path: <wmanager@condor.cqhost.net>
>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:10:36 -0400
>From: website manager <wmanager@condor.cqhost.net>
>To: Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>
> , Fabio Bigi <Fabio.Bigi@itu.int>
> , Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
> , Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
> , Azucena Hernandez <azucena.hernandez@pop3.telefonica.es>
> , Gerry Lawrence <gerry.lawrence@marconi.com>
> , Brian Moore <brian@bwmc.demon.co.uk>
> , Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner@w3.org>
>
>From: Carl Bildt <cbildt@atlargestudy.org>
>Subject: Request for input
>
>
>Greetings,
>
>On behalf of the At-Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC), I would
>like to solicit input from the Supporting Organization (SO)PSO and its
>constituents, as well as share with you our first "Discussion Paper"
>and our plans for completing our recommendations.
>
>We are eager to work with you and your colleagues to ensure that we
>have a thorough understanding of your activities, structure and needs -
>and your views on the relationship between your Supporting
>Organization, its constituents, and the "At-Large" membership
>(individual Internet user community). Details on the functioning of
>current ICANN organizations will aid in our efforts to recommend a
>successful structure/process for At-Large.
>
>Please find enclosed our current thoughts regarding the concept,
>structure and processes relating to an "At-Large" membership ("ALSC
>Discussion Paper"). As indicated in the attached, we are eager to get
>your input on a number of factual questions and normative issues that,
>for us, remain unresolved and important to our recommendations on At-
>Large participation and Board representation.
>
>In light of the ongoing DNSO review and the recent "Country Code
>Supporting Organization Statement," it is clear to us that our
>recommendations should not take ICANN's current organizational
>structure as an unalterable premise. Rather we need to consider ICANN's
>representational and decision-making structures in their entirety (e.g.
>the possible creation of additional Sos and re-allocation of Board
>seats).
>
>As such, the ALSC is actively considering a variety of potential
>participation structures for an "At-Large" that may affect the existing
>SOs, and we would not like to do so without adequate consultation with
>you
>
>Please forward this email to other relevant parties and send your
>thoughts, comments, concerns and suggestions to our Executive Director,
>Denise Michel (dmichel@atlargestudy.org) or to our email forum
>(comments@atlargestudy.org), if possible by July 27.
>
>Included in the paper is a proposed schedule of ALSC activities leading
>up to the submission for our final report to the Board in November. As
>you can see, we have an ambitious and tight schedule, which makes us
>eager to hear from you soon.
>
>If possible, we would like the opportunity to meet with members of your
>organization face-to-face to discuss our activities and draft
>recommendations. The ALSC will be in Silicon Valley (Santa Clara,
>California, USA) on August 13 - 14 and in Montevideo, Uruguay, on
>September 7-8. We would welcome a meeting with your organization, or
>some of its representatives, at these locations or elsewhere. Please
>contact Denise Michel to coordinate or to request additional
>information.
>
>Thank you for your cooperation, and we look forward to working with
>you.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Carl Bildt
>ALSC Chairman
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At-Large Membership Study Committee Discussion Paper #1
>
> July 12, 2001
>
>
>
> "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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> * 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.
> * Ensure that ICANN operates in a manner that is stable,
> accountable, transparent, and predictable.
> * 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.
> * Engender knowledge within, and support from, interested
> communities by giving them a demonstrable way of participating and
> affecting policy.
> * 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.
> * Encourage both the "non-technical" and "technical" communities to
> explain their concerns and the impact of their work more
> effectively to the broader public.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Our effort to recommend any reconfiguration of Board membership is
> driven by several goals, including the need to:
>
>
>
> * Fulfill ICANN's commitment to greater accountability of the Board
> of Directors to the Internet community.
> * Ensure "users' voices" are represented in ICANN's decisions.
> * Represent the diverse interests of those affected by ICANN
> decisions.
> * Select high-quality Board members capable of understanding and
> fulfilling ICANN's responsibilities.
> * Avoid "capture" of the Board through disproportionate and opaque
> representation of any one organization or interest group or
> community.
> * Ensure the Board Members work together effectively to fulfill its
> responsibilities.
>
> 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):
>
> * 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?
> * 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.)?
> * Similarly, how many participants attend face-to-face
> meetings/teleconferences? How often are such meetings held?
> * 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?
> * What conflict-of-interest provisions exist within each of the
> existing Supporting Organizations?
> * 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?
> * 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?
> * 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?
> * 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?
> * How should existing and potential constituencies be organized into
> Supporting Organizations or other entities such as interest
> groups, political parties, etc.
> * How can individuals be encouraged to self-organize without ICANN's
> direct involvement?
> * What would be each entity's role, authority, and funding source?
> * What (if any) specific consensus development processes should be
> recommended?
> * 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?
> * 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?
> * 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")?
> * Should some demonstration of commitment be required for
> participation in elections (such as requirements based on
> knowledge, participation, or money)?
> * 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.
>
> Comments@atlargestudy.org
>
> 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.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Appendix A: Brief Background
>
> The U.S. Department of Commerce, in granting ICANN its authority, urged
> ICANN to ensure "greater accountability of the Board of Directors to
> the Internet community" and to "operate in a bottom-up and
> representative manner, open to input from the broad community of
> Internet users."[4]
>
> How this accountability and representation should be achieved has been
> hotly debated since before ICANN was created in response to a request
> from (but not by) the U.S. Government. In addition to the diversity of
> views on how ICANN should be structured and operated, there also has
> been widespread disagreement on the mechanisms for At-Large
> representation (how to avoid fraud, abuse or capture).
>
> Currently, a 19-member Board of Directors governs ICANN, with nine
> members from three Supporting Organizations (three from each SO), five
> members who were selected by an At-Large membership, four members who
> were appointed and have served since ICANN was created, and one member
> who is the corporation's President and CEO. The Board and the three
> SO's are designed to include representatives of a specific set of
> Internet "stakeholders." ICANN's bylaws called for these three SO's to
> be "formed through community consensus": the Domain Name Supporting
> organization (DNSO), the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), and the
> Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO).
>
> Although the original nine-member Board was picked by Jon Postel and
> was seated upon ICANN's creation, there was no consensus on how the
> nine "At-Large Directors" should be selected going forward. In July,
> 2000, ICANN's Board adopted a compromise interim solution: the
> worldwide direct election of five "At-Large" Directors for the ICANN
> Board, one from each of five geographic regions (Africa,
> Asia/Australia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North
> America), by a self-selected At-Large membership, combined with the
> continued service of four of the initial ICANN directors (for a period
> not to exceed two years) to ensure that there would remain nine
> At-Large "slots" on the ICANN Board until (at a minimum) the results of
> this At-Large study are implemented. As part of this compromise, it was
> agreed that, during the next two years, there would be a "clean-sheet"
> study of how to appropriately provide for input and influence into
> ICANN policy deliberations and actions by the individual Internet user
> community. The five At-Large Directors were selected through an on-line
> election process and seated on the Board in November 2000. On January
> 26, 2001, ICANN announced the creation of the ALSC and the Board
> approved the Committee's members on March 20.[5]
=========================================================================