Dear Protocol Council Members,
Please find below for your information the NAIS Statement on the At-Large
Membership.
Kind regards,
Vlad
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Courtney [mailto:rob@cdt.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:31 PM
To: vladmir.androuchko@itu.int
Subject: NAIS Statement on the At-Large Membership
To the PSO:
Last night the NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS) released a new
statement regarding the Board's upcoming decision on At-Large
Membership issues. The statement includes our latest analysis and
research regarding: how a fee might be best implemented; the
structure of an effective ALM participatory organization; financial
predications for the ALM; and other pressing issues. A complete PDF
of the statement is available on our web site at
http://www.naisproject.org/020220statement.pdf; in this message I've
attached our executive summary.
We've appreciated the input of the PSO in the past and hope that any
members will feel free to contact me or any of the NAIS team to
discuss.
r
* * *
Statement by the
NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS)
Summary: A Defining Moment for the At-Large and ICANN
We have reached a defining moment for creating a meaningful At-Large
and achieving a more legitimate ICANN. It may also prove to be the
last chance for the Internet community and the public at large to
secure the inclusion of its voice and interests in the
decision-making processes of ICANN.
The NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS) remains committed to our
principles that ICANN's legitimacy can be best established through an
open, inclusive membership; robust, sustainable public participation;
strong representation of the public's interest in ICANN; and a clear,
well-defined statement of the ICANN mission.
Our report of last September, "ICANN, Legitimacy, and the Public
Voice: Making Global Participation and Representation Work," offered
detailed policy recommendations along these lines. Yet members of the
ICANN Board and the ICANN community have expressed concerns about
some aspects of our recommendations, and are pursuing different
approaches. Elements of this alternate track stem from the
recommendations of the At-Large Study Committee (ALSC), which has
called for a membership fee and a reduction in the number of At-Large
seats from nine to six.
While we find serious deficiencies in these alternate proposals, we
recognize that they attempt to address certain questions, including
some questions of financial boundedness left open by our report of
last September.
If the Board is to impose a membership fee, and/or decrease the
number of At Large directors, there are better and worse ways to take
such steps. Although we continue to disagree with movement in this
direction, if the Board nonetheless adopts these positions it should
do so by incorporating protections that will maximize ICANN's
legitimacy, stability, and accountability to the global Internet
community. We present some of these implementation ideas below.
THE MEMBERSHIP FEE
We continue to believe in a broadly inclusive membership. We present
here a structure of dues for the Board's consideration, but we
emphasize that even if voting rights become contingent (in most parts
of the world) on payment of dues, the ability to become a member and
to otherwise participate should remain open to any interested user.
* Scaled Fees: Any fees or dues should be carefully scaled to avoid
raising the bar for membership so high that large numbers of
interested individuals in lower-income countries are excluded. While
imperfect, we suggest that fees be based on the World Bank's tiers of
low-, lower-middle-, upper-middle-, and upper- income countries. For
discussion purposes, we suggest a fee ranging from US$5 to US$20.
* Fee Exemption: The Least-Developed Countries (as classified by the
UN) should be exempt from any fees. If there are concerns about
dues-exempt registrations creating a potential unbounded cost and
disparities within a region, a high "cap" could be created to set an
upper limit on the number of free registrations available in any one
country.
* Authentication & Expression of Interest: Where members pay dues,
those dues could be taken as adequate authentication of the members'
validity and interest. For those exempt from dues, a version of the
online registration and postal-return system from the 2000 election
could be used. New technologies offering alternative low-cost
authentication should be welcomed.
* Transaction Costs: To avoid the potentially untenable cost of
international money transfers, the transaction costs for dues payment
should be borne by members. The ALM should minimize costs by
accepting a wide variety of payment methods, including collection at
the local or regional levels.
THE ALM PARTICIPATORY STRUCTURE
Providing the ALM with a participatory structure that promotes
productive interactions among members is of equal importance to
running a successful election in 2002. We offer several
recommendations for a stable, effective participatory structure:
* The At-Large Should Not Be a "Supporting Organization": We disagree
with the characterization of the new ALM body as a "Supporting
Organization." We do not believe it will assume the direct
policy-making role of the other SOs, nor is it conceptually or
structurally the same. It should be referred to simply as the
"At-Large Membership."
* Membership Council: The ALM should be coordinated by a council that
facilitates communication and cooperation in the Membership and
further development of the ALM's participatory structures.
* Staff Support: Initially we believe at least one full-time
professional staff member will be needed to support the ALM and its
participatory structures. This person could be based in any region
deemed appropriate and feasible.
* Outreach to the User Community: The ALM should seek out
partnerships with local, national, and regional associations that
have established networks of participants.
POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF AT-LARGE DIRECTORSHIPS
* We do not believe sufficiently compelling arguments have been
presented to justify the reduction of the number of At-Large
Directors from nine to six. Nevertheless if the number of At-Large
Directors is reduced, the Board should change the bylaws to require a
vote of more than two-thirds of the Board for structural bylaw
changes (i.e., at least some At Large directors would have to support
such changes). Such a change should also only take place in the
context of a narrow mission for ICANN.
FINANCIAL MODEL
* How much will the ALM cost and how will it be paid for? We present
cost and revenue projections for an ALM election and structure.
* Expenses: Based on the 2000 At-Large election, we estimated costs
for an ALM election in 2002 and the creation of a membership
organization. Significant elements will vary with the size of the
ALM. We estimate initial costs of about US$450,000.
* Revenues: Fee revenues are highly dependent on the number and
geographic distribution of members. With the same distribution as
2000 and a fee reaching US$20, our revenue estimates range from as
high as US$576,000 (with a membership of 34,000, the number of votes
cast in 2000) to as little as US$28,000 (a membership of 1,700, just
five percent of the 2000 totals).
* Initial Support from ICANN: We conclude that, initially, it is
unlikely that a fee will generate enough revenue to fully support the
cost of the ALM. However, we believe the costs are not prohibitive;
are unlikely to be substantially higher than predicted; will decrease
over time; and are sufficiently bounded. We believe they should be
paid from ICANN's budget (raised from those who benefit financially
from a legitimate ICANN - and ultimately from consumers.).
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
* Restatement of the ICANN Mission: We share a growing concern in the
ICANN community that ICANN's scope of activities, as described in its
Articles of Incorporation and bylaws, lacks important clarity and
creates a risk of "mission creep." The Board should amend these
documents with a new mission statement, restating and explaining the
limited, bounded mission of ICANN.
* Election Rules: As the ICANN Board prepares for a new At-Large
election, it should establish and publicize clear, concise election
rules and codes for conduct. Our research has indicated that clear
statements by ICANN about the propriety of certain registration
and/or campaigning tactics could have a significant effect in
preventing the problems seen in 2000.
* Domain Name Holder Requirement: In its Final Report, the ALSC
proposed that membership be limited to those people who own domain
names. We strongly believe that such a restriction is not only
unnecessary but also unworkable globally, particularly in regions
where DNS registration practices vary widely.
--
Rob Courtney
Policy Analyst
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202 637 9800
fax 202 637 0968
rob@cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org/
--
Add your voice to the Internet policy debate!
JOIN THE CDT ACTIVIST NETWORK!
http://www.cdt.org/join/