Summary of the
Membership Advisory Committee Recommendations to ICANN

Singapore
3 March 1999
Delivered by co-chair George Conrades
Full Singapore Report

Real-time scribe notes and Real Audio recording

The MAC was concerned with issues relating to membership and the selection of at-large directors to the ICANN board.

The purpose of the at-large membership is to represent the users of the Internet, while Supporting Organizations reflect the supply side of the Internet.  The three SOs will each select 3 directors for a total of 9.  The at-large members will select the remaining 9 directors.

From eighty applicants, twelve committee members were chosen to sit on the committee representing the five regions of the world.  Each member has a reputation for active involvement in the Internet.

Since December, we have had six telephone meetings and three or four partial meetings in person (many of which were open to the public).  The MAC produced a substantial review of the issues in conjunction with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society.  This "MAC Singapore Report" will be put on one of our multiple websites where we have posted all our working papers, public comments, meeting minutes and other documents.  Over 850 public comments were received and reviewed by the committee.

I would like to thank the members of the MAC:

  1. Izumi Aizu: Secretary General of Asia Pacific Internet Association
  2. Tadao Takahashi: Chair of Brazilian chapter of the Internet Society.
  3. Diane Cabell: Attorney from Boston
  4. Kanchana Kanchuanasut: Associate Professor of Computer Science at Asian Institute of Technology.
  5. Pavan Duggal: Founder of Cyberlaw Association, associated with UN Development Program.
  6. George Conrades: Venture capitalist in Boston.
  7. Greg Crew: ICANN Board, Australia.
  8. Oscar Robles: Vice President of Latin American & Caribbean Networks Forum.
  9. Siegfried Langenbach: Owner of a German ISP.
  10. Daniel Kaplan: Consultant in strategic marketing, France.
  11. Nii Quaynor: Computer scientist, President of Internet Society chapter in Ghana.
  12. Jonathan Zittrain: Executive Director of Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Cambridge, MA.
  13. Dan Steinberg from Canada was unable to attend this meeting but has remained in telephone and e-mail contact with the Committee.


Ideally, the ICANN Board will make a final decision at the May 25 meeting in Berlin after a period of further public comment.  This would allow membership registration activities to begin this summer and nomination of candidates to start by the fall with a target for election of all 9 at-large members by the first quarter of 2000.

MAC has made a lot of progress toward this goal.  We reached agreement in many areas and made many positive recommendations, however we were unable to reach consensus on some important issues.  Perhaps public input at this point will help arrive at a final consensus.

1.0.  Who are the at-large members?

First question we asked was ”Who is a member”?

The MAC consensus was:

1.1. At-large membership is for those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations.  It includes individual users and should not be limited to IP address holders or domain name holders.   We want as large and diverse a representation of users as possible.

1.2. Organizations should also be allowed to become members representing the commercial user community.  There may be a difference, however, between general membership and voting membership.

1.3. In this regard, we believe that the most feasible protection against capture by special interests is to aggressively enroll a large individual membership base.


We did not achieve consensus on whether or not organizations should have voting rights, however we did agree that if organizations were to have voting rights then it should be no greater than one vote per organization.

Those favoring organizational membership point to the unique interest (which may include a substantial financial stake) that commercial users have (e.g., amazon.com).  Their numbers and their support may also be required if ICANN is to have long-term stability, and it is doubtful they will participate in large numbers without a vote.  Also, in many nations the method of voicing concerns is through representative bodies, not by individual activism.

Those who believe organizations should be excluded are confidant that the executives of such entities are capable of representing their commercial interests by voting as individuals and that limiting membership to individuals would greatly simplify membership registration.

If organizations are to be given votes for at-large directors, should the representatives casting their ballots also get individual votes?  Perhaps no individual should be allowed to represent more than one organization.  This would eliminate the incentive to create false organizations, if not the creation of false individuals.

2.0 . Crossover Voting

A second issue where we did not reach consensus concerns crossover voting.  Should individuals who have a direct vote for SO directors also be allowed to cast ballots for at-large directors?  This question may be less critical if the eventual structure of the SOs limits their voting to a very few individuals.

Allowing individuals who may directly elect SO directors (SO voters) to elect at-large directors can lead to capture by the technical interests and defeat of the at-large purpose to represent the general user.

On the other hand, individuals in SOs may have interests beyond the focus of the particular SO to which they belong.  It would be difficult to enforce a ban on cross-registration since it would necessitate access to private SO membership data.  If large numbers of general users enroll, this will not be a significant concern, however.

We do have consensus on the several points:

2.1. Individuals who have no right to elect SO directors may vote in the at-large membership.

2.2. Individuals who vote for SO directors as representatives of organizations within the SO should also have a right to vote for at-large directors in their personal capacity.

2.3. Only organizations that are not members of SOs should be at-large members.


3.0. Balloting

MAC consensus points on balloting are:

3.1. Each individual gets only one ballot per election (one person-one vote concept)

3.2. Proxy voting should be prohibited so that a single entity cannot accumulate a block of votes.

3.3. Secret balloting is recommended.

3.4. There should be no separate classes for voting purposes. Concern was expressed, however, that the lack of regional voting pools may result in those nations with a lot of voters being able to out-vote the smaller populations that actually come from other regions.

3.5. The committee only briefly touched on specific voting mechanisms such as single transferable votes.  It was understood that some mechanism (other than a single, simple vote) may be needed to facilitate voting for multiple, empty seats.


4.0 Membership Registration

MAC consensus points on registration were:

4.1. Sufficient effort should be made to identify individuals during membership enrollment to ensure that election results are valid and authentic.

4.2. Some member identification should be required including:

  • proof of citizenship/incorporation (if these are relevant)
  • physical mail address
  • e-mail contact (preferably private e-mail)
  • annual renewal presumed
  • address updates mandated
  • use online registration procedures where possible
    • 4.3. All relevant privacy concerns should be met in the collection and safeguarding and use of this data.

    4.4. Criminal record should not be a disqualification (to protect political dissidents).

    4.5. There is a suggested procedure for registration.  An online form is filled out by applicant who must forward/include land-based or other valid identification of some kind (to be determined).  ICANN would then respond by regular mail (to verify address) and send the applicant a membership identification code to use in voting and other transactions.

    Note that we have not determined the costs of these procedures at this time.

    5.0. Fees

    There was no MAC consensus on fees because there are several considerations.

    There are two benefits of charging fees: cost recovery and reduction of spoofed registrations.  Cost recovery may not be critical in light of other ICANN financial resources, and fees do not prevent excessive fraudulent registrations by wealthy interests. Also, the size of the at-large membership impacts on this question (i.e., the larger the membership, the greater the need for cost recovery).

    So--what to do?

    Possible models were suggested:

    1. No fees (individuals are already paying for access/domain registrations and should not be charged an additional amount to be entitled to "regulate" those services)
    2. Donation (voluntary contributions often produce respectable financial reserves)
    3. Private sponsorship
    4. Fees scaled  (e.g., $12 - $35) to relative income/national financial ranking
    5. Enroll initial membership for free and revisit issue in 12-18 months.
    6.0. Candidates

    MAC consensus on candidates is:

    6.1. Candidates may be nominated by any individual or organization.  If there are too many candidates for voters to reasonably assimilate, then an additional show-of-support by (X) other members can be required.

    6.2. A nominating committee might be useful to assist in soliciting candidates in regions with low turnout and to oversee election details such as fulfillment of candidate criteria, however there was no support at this time for a committee to filter or make subjective evaluations about candidates.

    6.3. The MAC also believes that, in a volunteer organization, it is reasonable to set some objective criteria for selection of candidates, including:

    6.4.  MAC also supports such campaign activities as a list of candidates and their data on an ICANN website and offers participate in online discussion fora or other debates


    7.0. Regional representation

    The MAC strongly believes that Article V Section 6 of the current Bylaws is seriously deficient in reaching the goal of adequate regional member representation.

    Article V, section 6 of the Bylaws currently appears to require the at-large regional representation quotas to be calculated after SO elections occur.  Where there are multiple SOs holding elections at different times, this seriously diminishes the ability of the at-large candidates to emerge and for the at-large membership to vote in a knowledgeable fashion about which candidate is eligible.

    The MAC consensus on regional representation is that:

    7.1. Article V Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws should be amended to conform to the following principles:
    a) no two directors from the same SO may be from the same region, and
    b) the at-large directors must include at least one from each region  and may have no more than 4 from the same region, and
    c) the regional cap on the total Board aggregate of directors should be eliminated.
    It should be noted that the Bylaws may be amended at this point by a two-thirds vote of the Interim Board.

    8.0.  Conclusion

    In closing this report to you, I want to comment on our committee's discussion yesterday afternoon on the uncertainties of getting this new membership process launched successfully.

    What if we don't achieve the desired broad and large representation that we seek?

    How do we ensure that we fulfill the objective of a balanced board and a truly responsive ICANN that meets the needs of both the technical and user communities?

    Some suggestions were made for the Board even where consensus has not been reached:

    8.1. Start with a zero-fee initial membership and aggressive outreach (e.g., include membership promotion in the role of registrars).

    8.2. Set some objective goals for membership (e.g., demographic diversity, minimum votes required for valid election, etc.).  Sample registration periodically to determine how well goals are being met and make corrections.

    LIST OF MAC CONSENSUS POINTS


     


    1. At-large membership is for those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations.  It includes individual users and should not be limited to IP address holders or domain name holders.   We want as large and diverse a representation of users as possible.

    2. Organizations should also be allowed to become members representing the commercial user community.  There may be a difference, however, between general membership and voting membership.

    3. In this regard to capture by commercial interests, we believe that the most feasible protection against capture by special interests is to aggressively enroll a large individual membership base.

    4. Individuals who have no right to elect SO directors may vote in the at-large membership.

    5. Individuals who vote for SO directors as representatives of organizations within the SO should also have a right to vote for at-large directors in their personal capacity.

    6. Only organizations that are not members of SOs should be at-large members.

    7. Each individual gets only one ballot per election (one person-one vote concept)

    8. Proxy voting should be prohibited so that a single entity cannot accumulate a block of votes.

    9. Secret balloting is recommended.

    10. There should be no separate classes for voting purposes. Concern was expressed, however, that the lack of regional voting pools may result in those nations with a lot of voters being able to out-vote the smaller populations that actually come from other regions.

    11. The committee only briefly touched on specific voting mechanisms such as single transferable votes.  It was understood that some mechanism (other than a

    12. Sufficient effort should be made to identify individuals during membership enrollment to ensure that election results are valid and authentic.

    13. Some member identification should be required including:

  • proof of citizenship/incorporation (if these are relevant)
  • physical mail address
  • e-mail contact (preferably private e-mail)
  • annual renewal presumed
  • address updates mandated
  • use online registration procedures where possible
    • 14. All relevant privacy concerns should be met in the collection and safeguarding and use of this data.

    15. Criminal record should not be a disqualification (to protect political dissidents).

    16. There is a suggested procedure for registration.  An online form is filled out by applicant who must forward/include land-based or other valid identification of some kind (to be determined).  ICANN would then respond by regular mail (to verify address) and send the applicant a membership identification code to use in voting and other transactions.

    17. Candidates may be nominated by any individual or organization.  If there are too many candidates for voters to reasonably assimilate, then an additional show-of-support by (X) other members can be required.

    18. A nominating committee might be useful to assist in soliciting candidates in regions with low turnout and to oversee election details such as fulfillment of candidate criteria, however there was no support at this time for a committee to filter or make subjective evaluations about candidates.

    19. The MAC also believes that, in a volunteer organization, it is reasonable to set some objective criteria for selection of candidates, including:

    20.  MAC also supports such campaign activities as a list of candidates and their data on an ICANN website and offers participate in online discussion fora or other debates

    21. Article V Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws should be amended to conform to the following principles:

    a) no two directors from the same SO may be from the same region, and
    b) the at-large directors must include at least one from each region  and may have no more than 4 from the same region, and
    c) the regional cap on the total Board aggregate of directors should be eliminated.
    22. Start with a zero-fee initial membership and aggressive outreach (e.g., include membership promotion in the role of registrars).

    23. Set some objective goals for membership (e.g., demographic diversity, minimum votes required for valid election, etc.).  Sample registration periodically to determine how well goals are being met and make corrections.

    Last updated on 7 March 1999 by Diane Cabell
    Berkman Center for Internet & Society