Thank you very much for your request. The topic you are studying are indeed of interest to us, and I will seek guidiance from my community on what response will be appropriate. I have forwarded your message to all of the Address Council and will expect us to discuss how to respond to your request at our next meeting at latest I have also forwarded your message to the RIPE Policy Working group (lir-wg) to seek comments and input from the working group members. We have a working group meeting in Prague 1 - 5 October 2001 but that may as I understand your timeline, be a bit on the late side for the result of the discussion to be incorporated. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen AC Chair/RIPE lir-wg Chair ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Bildt" <cbildt@atlargestudy.org> To: "Hans Petter Holen" <hph@online.no>; "Takashi Arano" <arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp>; "Jianping Wu" <jianping@sea.net.edu.cn>; "Seung-Min Lee" <smlee@i-names.co.kr>; "Raimundo Beca" <rbeca@ctc.cl>; "Cathy Wittbrodt" <cjw@remarque.org>; "Barbara Roseman" <barbara@gblx.net>; "Wilfried Woeber" <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at>; "Sabine Jaume" <Sabine.Jaume@renater.fr>; "Raul Echeberria" <raul@inia.org.uy>; "Nii Quaynor" <Quaynor@ghana.com> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:51 AM 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)ASO 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] | | | | Appendix B: Proposed Schedule of ALSC Activities | | | | * Issue Discussion Paper #1 with Proposed Schedule of ALSC | Activities (July 12) | * Issue key questions regarding potential structures/directions | (July) | * Issue Discussion Paper #2 listing additional points of ALSC | agreement and potential options for individual Internet user | participation in ICANN (July) | * ALSC working and outreach meetings (August 13) | * Issue Draft Report (by September 7) | * ALSC working and outreach meetings (September 7) | * Submit final report to ICANN Board and issue to public (by | November 14) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | Footnotes | | 1. "Charter for the At Large Membership Study Committee," ICANN, | January 22, 2001, | http://www.icann.org/committees/at-large-study/charter-22jan01.htm | 2. ICANN Public Comment Forum, DNSO Review, | http://forum.icann.org/dnsoreview1/ | 3. "ccSO Formation Statement (Stockholm, 1 June, 2001)," by the | "World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names, ccTLD Constituency | of the DNSO," http://www.wwtld.org/ | 4. "U.S. Government White Paper" (United States Department Of | Commerce Management of Internet Names and Addresses, National | Telecommunications and Information Administration, Statement of | Policy), June 5, 1998, | http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm | 5. At-Large Study Committee information can be found at | http://www.atlargestudy.org | |