|
At Large Membership
& Elections - Scribe's Notes IV. At Large Membership & Elections A. Moderator: Prof Charles Nesson B. Panelists: Quaynor, Simons, McLaughlin, Aizu, Klein, Hoffman, Campos C. Klein: Morning discussion had good attendance and participation. Recent election was historic, huge turnout. Widespread interest in ICANN. Today, we formed an “interim coordinating committee” for the At-Large Membership. D. Aizu (participant on “MAC”=“Membership Advisory Committee”): Zero fee increased participation. Asia-Pacific region had the highest registration and turnout due to encouragement from Asian Internet community, advertisements on web site (rumor: “get a free PC for registering and sending us your registration number to prove it”). No rules to regulate this. 1. Nesson: So we need rules? E. Quaynor: Inadequate outreach. I won with 67 of 130 votes. Central Africa had low participation, partly due to low Internet usage, but also no possibility of alternative methods of participation (other than Internet). And “snail mail” (postal service for mail delivery) inefficient, so ICANN’s authentication proved troublesome, especially because many of those with resources to register electronically also travel so much that they couldn’t receive their authentication codes. F. Campos: Steepness of learning curve was unanticipated. Election process was fragile and could have been captured. We’re lucky that it wasn’t. G. Hoffman: ICANN was unknown until the spring. Germany came to dominate because ICANN didn’t do outreach of its own, leaving an opportunity for the German press to step in. H. Nesson: What about American press? 1. Simons: American press was a disappointment. Perhaps they’ll soon start covering these issues better. Many of those who wanted to vote couldn’t, because they found out about the elections after the registration period had closed. I. Nesson: A success? 1. McLaughlin: The process has been interesting. At outset, we were worried about capture, nationalism, fraud, verification, affordability, inclusiveness, technical competence of resulting electors. Experience suggests both strengths and weaknesses on each of these fronts. Wouldn’t call this an unqualified success, and at least some of our initial worries were proven true. But other concerns (“capture by ICANN insiders”) were disproven. 2. Simons: Process was better than many of us expected. Have to continue with this process. It’s troubling that there’s talk of eliminating the At-Large seats but no similar reconsideration of the SO seats. So we shouldn’t focus only on At-Large. 3. Simon: Elimination of At-Large seats would remove the public interest influence in ICANN. That would be troubling. 4. Klein: The prospect of a clean-sheet study is a significant departure from prior commitments. See letters posted at http://www.civsoc.org . J. Nesson: But no one was terribly confident in the initial plan produced by the MAC. A review of the election seems appropriate, doesn’t it? 1. Simon: Concerned that ICANN may completely do away with the Membership. 2. McLaughlin: Worked hard on these elections. But asking the question is useful. And we can properly ask the question across the board – structure of the entire organization. Substantive contributions to the process are valued; there’s no conflict between the SOs and the Membership. This isn’t an organization modeled on the idea of different parties (SOs versus Members), but on consensus. K. Nesson: Is there a fundamental conflict between At-Large Elections and the consensus-driven model of the organization? 1. McLaughlin: It’s a tension that can be resolved to everyone’s advantage. Elections attract attention to ICANN, improving transparently. L. Nesson: Will there be a “caucus” of At-Large Directors? 1. Campos: Expect to deal with all issues, but from the point of view of an At-Large Director. We all hope the Internet won’t turn out like the radio; we don’t want the Internet to be governed solely by the market. 2. Quaynor: See myself as a Director (period). Will deal with all issues facing ICANN. Will seek whatever support is available to benefit outreach efforts. M. Nesson: Should At-Large have a separate role? At-Large Directors? 1. Klein: Yes. At-Large should continue to exist even beyond the elections. Simple but workable organizational framework – “interim coordinating committee” for about six months to maintain a web site, promote forums, develop a newsletter, talk to the press. 2. McLaughlin: Self-organization is a good thing. But I’m nervous to see a self-organization effort that doesn’t seem to be broad-based. Hans doesn’t know who the At-Large members are, because he can’t crawl through the list (and neither can I). But it makes me unhappy to see self-organization that looks like it might be for political ends. 3. Klein: It’s true that we don’t have access to the ICANN At-Large Membership list. Need to both respect the privacy of the members and make them accessible for organizing purposes. We’ve done the best we can given that we can’t access. N. Karl Auerbach: Resent notion that open meeting trying to organize is not representative. 1. McLaughlin: 158,000 members. How can you say that this small group of people in one room on one day are representative? 2. Aizu: No Asians in the room. 3. Auerbach: If people don’t participate, they can’t complain. 4. McLaughlin: There’s a bigger process going on here, with a lot more people than can come to LA this week. Have to built a process that’s as broad and inclusive as possible. These processes are complex, and we need to be careful. 5. Simons: Need to avoid the outcome of radio – want to continue to facilitate speech on the ‘net. It was frustrating as a candidate to be unable to reach constituents. (The ICANN web-based discussion forum?) O. Abril i Abril: Elected via DNSO. Have previously been “the difficult guy” on the Board, but now Karl and Andy present also. Concerned about absence of geographic diversity among ICANN staff. P. Hofmann: Uncomfortable with change of By-laws? 1. Abril i Abril: Shouldn’t change By-laws too rashly. 2. Nesson: Should have had the new Board Members involved in the decision re what to do about the next step. What happens if study is delayed? Keep four of the original directors indefinitely? 3. McLaughlin: There’s no magic here. We have to decide how to run elections, set up a process, etc. The good faith of the directors, existing and new, should be sufficient to carry us towards a new structure. 4. Simon: Nervousness because there’s a threat that the At-Large Directors may be phased out and eliminated. The Staff and Board need to do the study and come up with conclusions promptly. 5. Klein: Board conceives of the world as two balancing factions – SOs (industry) and At-Large (consumers). SOs got on board with ICANN immediately, and they started to make rules about the At-Large representation. 6. McLaughlin: That narrative is fiction. I’m sure it’s appealing, and it may be compelling in political dimensions. But there are three kinds of unique identifiers that ICANN must coordinate: domain names, IP addresses, protocol numbers. Each SO is open. Europeans can go to RIPE NCC policy meetings. Those interested in names issues can join the SO. There was no “counterbalancing of individuals against companies.” There is still a perplexing question about individual participation, and we haven’t solved that. Hans’s story just isn’t what has taken place, and telling this false story threatens to undermine ICANN’s consensus base with thoughts of legislature. • Nesson: Why the heckling of the audience? • McLaughlin: My own personal unpopularity. Q. Auerbach: The existence of an At-Large electorate is nonnegotiable. 1. Nesson: Politically feasible for ICANN to go back at this point? Could ICANN survive if it tries to do so? 2. Auerbach: ICANN is twisting in the wind, because DoC has said it has no intention of delegating to ICANN’s policy authority. R. Mueller: “It’s just your ideas that suck.” You tried to discredit this morning’s At-Large organizing efforts because the group was too small. But we don’t know who organized ICANN, and they did that in secret. S. McLaughlin: I’m not trying to delegitimize; just worried about hijacking and expressing those worries. T. Simons: The communications issue – still need a way to reach those ICANN members. U. Hans refers to site: http://www.icannmembers.org for this morning’s ICANN members self-organizing effort V. McLaughlin: The SOs exist as sites for participation. [Auerbach: but no individual membership for DNSO.] W. Nesson inquires about study; how will public interest be represented there? X. Don S.: Depends on a bunch of factors, including how open and transparent study will be; watching closely what board does this week. Y. Quaynor: Must not overemphasize power of in-person mtgs, where participation from those far away can be attenuated. CONTACT INFORMATION For additional technical information, please contact: Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson |