ICANN At Large Study Committee -- Scribe's Notes
November 12, 2001
Marina del Rey, California
ICANN Public Meetings

I. † Welcome - Cerf
† †A. † Agenda:
† † † †1. † Summary of ALSC recommendations
† † † †2. † Public comments
II. † ALSC Final Report Delivered - Bildt
† †A. † Presentation delivered Ė http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/archive/pres/bildt-alsc.html
† †B. † Cerf: Thank you
III. † Public Comments
† †A. † Hans Klein (Comp Profs for Social Responsibility): Concerned about change in composition of Board of Directors. Prior discussion emphasized the importance of the 9-9 split, and current plans effectively suggest a 6-12 split, with 12 industry and expert representatives. The categories of developers and suppliers often overlap. As a result, the ALSCís proposed categories fail to achieve balance. Problems with every proposal, but 9-9 is more legitimate and better reflects a prior process. ALSCís deliberation cannot legitimately change prior discussions.
† †B. † Barbara Simons (ACM): The decision to split the Board 6-12 is not driven by cost concerns. Also, capture is a problem for the entirety of the Board, not just the At Large seats, and so it is wrong to reduce the size of AL as a result of concerns about capture. Finally, concern that 2/3 of the Board could change the Bylaws to remove the At Largeís 1/3.
† †C. † Kilnam Chon (KAIST) Ė Why donít we broaden the sample? Take a random sampling of the selected group. Think of the domain name holder as a citizen. If ICANN is going to charge for membership, fee should be gauged to countryís GNP.
† †D. † Clement Dzidonu (NAIS, INIIT): Thanks to ALSC for working on this difficult task. Concerns about barriers to participation: requiring domain name registration to be a member, and charging fees. The specific implementations here will be difficult. Additional problems for shared (organizational, institutional) domain names. Email verification has already proven acceptable and should be used.
† †E. † Joop Teernstra (#1376, remote): Concerned that members with voting rights may be administrative contacts (from corporate bulk domain name holders) rather than individuals.
† † † †1. † Wong: Cannot guarantee that. Can provide some level of assurance. Assurance will be greater than for email verification because have additional methods of verifying identify. There may be some cases of fraud, but our focus is on detecting fraud (rapidly) rather than preventing it altogether.
† †F. † Mao Wei ( CNNIC): Agree with Chon and NAIS report. ALSCís proposal fails to allow participation by numerous interested Internet users. Prior ICANN scope of membership (anyone with email) was preferable.
† †G. † Christina Haralanova (APC Internet Rights Project): Previously, in Congressional testimony, ICANN stated that preparing an At Large structure with nine elected Board Members was its highest priority. But ALSC says that it is uncertain that nine elected Board Members is the best way to proceed.
† †H. † Wolfgang Kleinwaechter (University of Aarhus): Some controversial issues in the ALSC report. Should continue to discuss the controversial issues (6-6-6 vs 9-9, fees, domain-name-holder-plus) but should also move forward with noncontroversial issues. Need an infrastructure to form regional councils. Should move forward with this.
† †I. † Raul Echeberria (ENRED/LACNIC): We are confusing conceptual questions with implementation. Consensus is possible but need to keep in mind the characteristics of local communities and need to rethink the limiting of membership to domain name holders. Do not understand discussion that considers 6 a compromise between 0 and 9, because 0 should not be considered.
† †J. † Izumi Aizu (GLOCOM/NAIS): Was a member of the 1999 Membership Advisory Committee. MAC proposed a zero-fee in the first round of elections, and suggested that in the future members might pay the incremental cost of participation while ICANN itself paid the fixed cost. Should consider granting waivers to less developed countries.
† †K. † Esther Dyson (ALSC/EDventure Holdings): Share the principles weíve heard today. But it is hard to design a system that will actually work. We donít intend to make statements but to devise a system that is practical, effective, and compelling. But prior election was not successful in the sense that it did not encourage ongoing participation. (Many folks left or did not join mailing lists, etc.) Nine versus six is a question of workability, but we do not see the Board Members as representing only certain blocks.
† †L. † Harold Feld (Media Access Project): Agree with several of Estherís comments. Comment ALSCís report for endorsing value of At Large. First At Large election addressed certain of the fears previously expressed. Qualified candidates were elected, and attempts at capture in fact produced healthy participation by newcomers. Change in ratio of Board representation is troubling and may damage ICANNís credibility. Concerned that ALSC exceeded its mandate when it recommended a change in Board representation.
† †M. † Toshimaru Ogura (NaST): Posted comments to ALSCís public comment list. Oppose voting restrictions. However, concerned that prior comments may have been misunderstood or mischaracterized in ALSCís work. All users should have the right to participate in this process.
† † † †1. † Auerbach: For or against term limits?
† †N. † Kent Crispin (Songbird): Capture by other SOs is less worrisome because other SOs have existing structures and well-known members, making scrutiny easy. No such controls in the AL process.
† † † †1. † Auerbach: Require credentials for membership in DNSO Business Constituency or IP Constituency?
† †O. † Jerry Berman (Center for Democracy and Technology): CDTís views about elections are well-known. CDT wants ICANN to succeed and wants to see ICANN move forward. ICANN should restate its mission in order to address public concern about expansion of mission.
† †P. † Steve Metalitz (Intellectual Property Constituency): Agree with ALSC that financial and administrative manageability of At Large is important. Support the proposal of 6 At Large Members. Agree that eligibility for membership should be tied to domain name registration. Proposal to create ALSO should be separate from voting structures especially because costs of ALSO could be large. Suggest staggered terms for AL members (same as DNSO) to promote stability. Should reevaluate sooner than in two election cycles.
† † † †1. † Auerbach: Is IPC a provider, developer, or user?
† † † † † †ē Metalitz: No position.
† †Q. † David Johnson (gTLD Registries): gTLD Registries support At Large. But general restructuring of ICANN structure is in order. We need to restate the limits of ICANNís mission and the commitment to the consensus process.
† † † †1. † Kraaijenbrink: Restate the mission? Does this call for rethinking (and perhaps changing) the mission?
† † † †2. † Johnson: Just restate the existing mission, lest anyone think it has changed.
† †R. † Adam Peake (GLOCOM & NAIS): Should reconsider the recommendation that only those who hold domain names or pay a fee can be members. This will be difficult for those in developing countries. Also, need to be clear that ALSCís plan will allow administrative contracts for all domains (even those held by institutions) to be members, which is undesirable.
† †S. † Marilyn Cade (Business Constituency): BC has been concerned about how this process might proceed, but we nonetheless participated. Submitted questions, and significant efforts made to address our concerns. The ALSCís proposal is implementable and supportable. The ďdomain name holder plusĒ approach is a good way to assure that anyone interested can participate. Hope that those who have pending concerns will put their efforts into building the ALSO. Look forward to helping. Approve of the 6-6-6 balance.
† †T. † Tony Holmes (ISPCP): Communique forthcoming. Support ALSCís plan to maintain stability of the Internet. Issues still to be resolved: Integration of ALSO with ICANN, developer/provider/user split (unconvincing). Existing five-region model is natural and well-established. Using different regions for different parts of ICANN is confusing and may be unworkable. Many implementation issues still outstanding, but existing report is a good start.
† †U. † Iliya Nickelt (VOV): People registered for prior election out of a sense that something new would arise from At Large. Even if a global democracy is not what ICANN wants, it may happen anyway if that is what many people want. Must not get disconnected from the underlying community.
† †V. † Eric Dierker: Have been working on GA outreach. ďDomain plus plusĒ is an improvement Ė recognizes the way many people actually use the Internet. Should make sure that fees are properly scaled to suit ability to pay of Internet users worldwide. Nine-versus-six is an important distinction for us; if we cannot achieve a proper balance here, users might be better off if these decisions were made by governments. W. Christopher Wilkinson: A change from nine Board Members to six sends a signal that the weight of public interest representation has been reduced. The other details matter too Ė 6 of 15 versus 6 of 18. Governments will seek more involvement if ICANN makes this change, and the governments may regret this.
† †X. † Alan Davidson (Center for Democracy and Technology): ALSC has put forward a recommendation for consideration. There is consensus about some points of the recommendation, but not others. Need to reach agreement on these issues, but should not rush to make final decisions on controversial issues.
† † † †1. † Pisanty: What are the noncontroversial issues?
† † † † † †ē Davidson: Appropriate role for public participation. Emphasis on participation. Principle of balance. Y. Christopher Chiu (ACLU): ALSC has issued a draft report, has asked for comments, and has issued its final report. Final report still suffers from the same shortcomings of months ago. Should not repeat the mistake of the past (in which only those who owned land could vote). A lottery is not a good idea either, as too many people will lose (and then be unable to participate by voting). ICANN should state its mission and stay within it. Z. Hector Ariel Manoff (Vitale, Manoff, Feilbogen, Arg): There are multiple views of the web Ė more commercial versus less commercial. Varying emphases on authentication present a tradeoff between robustness of security versus scope of participation. Finally, keep in mind that some countries offer free registration in their ccTLDs.
† †AA. † Pindar Wong: Comments are valuable and helpful. Emphasis at this time should be to identify areas of agreement and disagreement.
† †BB. † Ellen Rony (Alexander Works / Domain Name Handbook): Before formation of ICANN, extensive discussion about scope of public participation. At large should be added to Articles of Incorporation.
† †CC. † Peter Dengate Thrush (ccTLDs): ccTLDs have not yet reached a position on the ALSC report. But ccTLDs are uncertain that domain names are a proper way to calculate the electorate. Many ccTLDs uncertain that their national laws would allow them to share individual data due to concerns about privacy.
† † † †1. † Cerf: No registration under a ccTLD would be appropriate evidence of qualification to participate in At Large election process.
† † † † † †ē Dengate Thrush: A range of views.
IV. † Responses to Public Comments
† †A. † Dyson: Eager to find appropriate ways to identify and reach interested users. Discussions with UNDP re the UN sponsoring individuals to become At Large members (though discussions are ongoing). Showing up at an ICANN meeting would be acceptable. Need transparency systems that both prevent junk mail and allow deliberation. Electorate cannot be secret.
† †B. † Bildt: Momentum will be lost if we allow excessive delays. Need a solution which is financially and logistically workable. Concerned that there are almost as many people at the bar right now as there are here.
† † † †1. † Mueller: Identify the impact of ICANNís decisions and procedures on users. Why should users participate? Need to make sure we donít unduly exclude anyone (those who lose their domains in a UDRP, for example).
   C.   Cohen: Board Members represent everyone, not just certain interests. We shouldnít dismiss the study out of hand, or on basis of prejudices.
   D.   Auerbach: Agrees that board members obligation is to the corporation of ICANN. Criticizes the report for its conclusory approach, itís lack of methodology.
       1.   Bildt: As an outsider, sees that ICANN has been bogged down by procedural governance issues. We should move beyond procedure to substance.
   E.   Jerry Berman: there is widespread public misunderstanding of ICANNís mission.
   F.   Cerf: closing remarks. There are areas of agreement and disagreement. Meeting adjourned.


For additional technical information, please contact:  

Ben Edelman and Rebecca Nesson
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School 

Other ICANN-Related Content from The Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Translate with Altavista Babelfish: Deutsch, Espanol, Francais, Italiano, Portugues