Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content

Interim At-Large Advisory Committee Responses

Last Updated:
Date

Comments from Karl Auerbach

<http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00003.html>

(Response also located at <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00008.html>)

Inquired about public posting of comments and asked for public posting
during the comment period.

  • The comment period was extended to enable additional comments and responses
    to these postings.

Objected to use of the phrase ICANN's technical management
responsibilities, and to the requirement that organizations demonstrate
that their concerns/activities relate to this.

  • The ALAC intended to simply reference the basic mission of ICANN. This
    phrase has been deleted. The ALAC believes that, to help achieve informed
    participation in ICANN of the At-Large community, At-Large Structures need
    to involve individual Internet users in at least one issue or activity that
    relates to ICANN's mission. This seems like a reasonable and necessary
    criteria to help reach our goal.

Thinks that the proposed criteria should not be imposed on the At-Large
community until similar criteria are imposed on other ICANN stakeholders
(and their constituent organizations).

  • The ALAC proposed the criteria in a pragmatic approach to comply with ICANN
    s bylaws and launch the building of an effective network of At-Large
    Structures. We attempted to balance the need to minimize the rules and
    simplify the At-Large Structure designation process with the need to provide
    guidance and assurances that At-Large Structures would be credible groups
    that facilitate informed participation by users in ICANN. The ALAC has no
    authority over, nor position on, imposing criteria on other stakeholders or
    their constituent organizations.

Comments from Bret Fausett

<http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00000.html>

(Response also located at <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00009.html>)

Suggested deleting proposed At-Large Structure criteria #5 ("Be open and
participatory) so closed communities of users could be At-Large
Structures, as long as individuals have the ability to participate in
another At-Large Structure.

  • The ALAC has adopted this suggestion. The openness requirement cited has
    been removed to clarify that organizations with specific membership
    requirements (or closed memberships) may participate as At-Large
    Structures, so long as these groups are participatory in terms of involving
    individual constituents/members in policy development, discussions and
    decisions, and so long as the regions At-Large Structures *in aggregate*
    are open. To ensure that all interested individuals in each region have an
    opportunity to participate, the ALAC has added language to the RALO MOU
    guidelines that RALOs should demonstrate that every citizen or resident in
    its region is welcome to join at least one of its At-Large Structures.

Comments from YJ Park

<http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00001.html>

(Response also located at <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00010.html>)

Believes the proposal makes it impossible for individuals who are not
associated with any specific qualified organization from participating in
ICANN, and the proposal reminds her of building another version of the
NCUC.

  • On the contrary, the proposal mandates that interested individuals be
    allowed to participate and that RALOs be structured to ensure this.
    Further, the ALACs proposal must comply with the bylaws which state that
    RALOs "shall include provisions designed to allow, to the greatest extent
    possible, every individual Internet user who is a citizen of a country
    within the RALO's Geographic Region to participate in at least one of the
    RALO's At-Large Structures. A RALO may elect to also directly include
    individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of countries within
    the RALO's Geographic Region." RALOs can be structured to include
    individuals directly, or to include a "general At-Large Structure" through
    which any individual in the region could participate -- to name just two
    ways an individual could participate without becoming a member of an
    existing organization.
  • The ALAC is not attempting or proposing "to build another version of the
    NCUC." The NCUC involves non-commercial organizations. The ALAC and the
    proposed At-Large infrastructure is aimed at involving *individual Internet
    users,* whatever the nature of their activities (whether commercial, social,
    political, purely personal or other) -- and uses organizations to enable
    individuals to be involved at the local/issue/regional level. The ALAC
    believes that, without the ability to globally organize and interact in a
    structured manner, At-Large and its members will not be able to achieve full
    or effective ICANN participation.

Suggests use of the concept of five geographic regions be reconsidered.

  • The bylaws require a structure and representation for At-Large based on
    the existing ICANN definition of "geographically diverse" (involving five
    regions). This is consistent with how ICANN approaches geographic
    diversity for various entities. ICANN could decide in the future to take a
    different approach to geographic diversity, of course, but until it does,
    the ALAC must use with the existing definition.

Believes ICANN should prepare some detailed mechanism such as financial
support to make At-Large members meaningfully participate in the ICANN.

  • The bylaws state that Each RALO shall be comprised of self-supporting
    At-Large Structures The ALAC, however, will continue to explore ways of
    addressing financial barriers to At-Large participation in ICANN.

Believes the ALAC working language for this process should be diversified,
and that the At-Large Structure application/designation process should be
publicly archived, and that RALO MOUs should be posted for public comment
before being signed.

  • English is used by the ALAC to conduct its business and we believe
    expediency necessitates that the At-Large Structure applications be
    submitted in English. We do attempt to translate ALAC communications (ALAC
    members volunteer translations) to make our work more accessible to
    non-English speaking communities. The ALAC agrees that information on the
    At-Large Structure designation process should be publicly available, and
    that proposed MOUs should be published for comment. Language to this effect
    has been added. (However, it is worth noting that any language diversity
    requirements make achievement of the goal above financial sustainability
    more difficult.)

Asked What if RALO does have minimum of 500 individual members in at least
2 different countries within the RALO's geographica Region?

  • The ALAC proposed a minimum requirement of 3 At-Large Structures based in
    at least 2 different countries within the RALO's Geographic Region
    participate before an MOU is signed (and the RALO becomes official). This
    is intended to help ensure broad representation and cooperation among
    organizations in a region, and to help prevent one organization or one
    country from dominating a RALO. However, this requirement may need to be
    revisited, and it would be addressed in the proposed periodic review of
    At-Large.

Comments from L. Gallegos

<http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00002.html

(Response also located at <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00012.html>)

Believes that the process is too burdensome and is unnecessary to
communicate a view to ICANN. Also feels that As long as the public is
excluded from meaningful participation in the election of directors, full
membership and all rights thereof, the ALAC is meaningless.

Comments from another individual to ALAC members (not authorized for posting
on the ALAC forum) echoed this theme, objecting to what he described as the
ALACs attempt to replace individuals rights to representation with
benefits of participation, stating that the ALAC is not supporting
workable mechanisms for informed participation, and proposing a Supporting
Organization for the At-Large that elects half of the ICANN Board.

  • The ALAC has attempted to comply with the bylaws and propose appropriate
    criteria, processes and guidelines to help launch a global At-Large
    infrastructure. We will continue working on this with an eye towards
    simplification (including creating a simple, easy to understand and complete
    At-Large Structure applications form). Individuals have a right to
    communicate freely. The ALAC is trying to help them communicate more
    effectively and influentially with ICANN. A certain amount of process and
    protocol is necessary to achieve this goal.
  • The ALAC is committed to achieving informed participation in, and
    representation of, the At-Large community in ICANN. Working with existing
    groups (and anyone else who is interested) throughout the world to
    substantively involve individual Internet users seems like a practical,
    expedient way of jump-starting an engaged At-Large community. The ALAC
    (and this proposal) should be viewed as a critical first step towards
    structured involvement of the individual user community in ICANN and towards
    a formalized role in ICANN's policy development process that ensures
    individual users' views are taken into account. This is the ALAC's goal.
  • The need for a structured process to bring to ICANN the individual user
    communitys opinions and input is further reinforced by the following
    observations by an ALAC member:
    1. The only way to extract a homogenous idea form the "big audience" is
      to work it through different levels of discussions. To have regional-level
      organizations that encourage these discussions is unquestionably useful.
    2. Posting comments in an e-mail list doesn't seem to be a better way to
      handle massive public participation. There are very few who can afford to
      invest all their time writing opinions in mailing lists (or even posting on
      websites expressing their disagreement).
    3. Indirect representation is a system commonly used in modern
      democracies all around the world. Dictators often present themselves as
      liberators and claim to express the public interest. The differences and
      similarities of populism and democracy apply here.
    4. A workable mechanism for participation and representation is
      unavoidable.
    5. To find support in existing organizations that represent Internet user
      interests seems to be the best way to foster the development of a public
      participation process in the ICANN community.
    6. You certainly don't need a card that states "director" to be heard and
      considered when bringing a good idea to the table. However, to have user
      representation on the Board, is, eventually, a highly desirable idea.
  • The ALAC views this proposal as a workable mechanism for participation and
    representation. The ALAC has been structured to make sure that the voice of
    different sectors of the Internet community will be heard and that their
    representation can be effectively taken into account. The ALAC, and this
    proposal, give At-Large a role in the selection of Board members and provide
    At-Large with meaningful involvement in the development of policy within
    ICANN (in addition to providing mechanisms for commenting on proposed
    policies). For example, ALAC activities to date include:
    1. Outreach to At-Large communities in various regions, and proposing
      criteria, processes, and guidelines for creating an At-Large infrastructure;
    2. Appointing five delegates to the Nominating Committee (more than other
      stakeholder groups), and recruiting candidates with At-Large experience;
    3. Publicizing and analyzing proposed policies and their potential effect
      on the At-Large community, and providing mechanisms and processes for
      At-Large input and discussions a website, forum, and announce list have
      been created, and ALAC liaisons are active on the GNSO Council, WHOIS task
      force, and the new gTLD committee; and
    4. Providing advice on ICANN issues, proposals, and activities that are
      relevant to individual Internet users the ALAC has solicited input and
      provided guidance on the WHOIS database, new gTLDs, internationalized domain
      names, and WIPO recommendations (to name a few issues).

Comments from Marc Schneiders

<http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00004.html>

(Response also located at <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00007.html>)

Asked where/how international organizations (covering more than one region)
fit in.

  • Under the draft criteria, an international organization could be designated
    as an "At-Large Structure" within the region in which it has a majority of
    participants ("Participation by individual Internet users who are citizens
    or residents of countries within the Geographic Region in which the ALS is
    based will predominate in the ALS' operation.) This is consistent with
    ICANNs bylaws, which state that The criteria and standards for the
    certification of At-Large Structures shall be established in such a way that
    participation by individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of
    countries within the Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article
    VI) of the RALO will predominate in the operation of each At-Large Structure
    within the RALO, while not necessarily excluding additional participation,
    compatible with the interests of the individual Internet users within the
    region, by others. Another possibility is for an international
    organizations "sub-organizations" (e.g. local or regional chapters) to seek
    "At-Large Structure" designation in each region in which they are located.
    In addition, under the proposal, RALOs would have the flexibility to allow
    for some level of participation by international organizations (e.g. by
    creating a special category, in addition to "At-Large Structures," to
    accommodate international organizations' involvement in an advisory
    capacity).

Comments from Richard Henderson

<http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00005.html>

(Response also located at <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00011.html>)

Does not recognize the ALACs authority to organize on his behalf and
believes an Internet users organization should be created outside ICANN to
operate critically and independently.

  • The purpose of the ALACs work is to propose a framework for individual
    user participation using existing and newly-formed organizations. It is our
    expectation that the At-Large infrastructure envisioned by this proposal
    will operate critically and independently. Although Internet user
    organizations can have constructive roles both inside and outside ICANN,
    we believe that by developing an At-Large infrastructure to involve and
    represent inside ICANN a broad set of individual user interests, we are
    helping to ensure that ICANN's policies reflect the interests of a full
    range of stakeholders. Bringing individual user interests to bear as DNS
    policies are being developed and decided upon requires the type of informed
    participation and representation that the ALAC is working towards. In short,
    consider the ALAC a channel *into* ICANN rather than just a part of ICANN.
    It will become such a channel only if those *outside* take advantage of this
    mechanism. They are free to ignore it, but then they risk not being heard.

Comments from Jeanette Hofmann

<http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00006.html>

(Response also located at <http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/criteria/msg00013.html>)

Objects to requiring individuals to found or join an organization in order
to participate in At-Large, and expressed doubts regarding the 5 regions
model.

  • As noted above, the ALAC proposal complies with the bylaws and uses organizations to enable individuals to be involved at the local/issue/regional level. The proposal also allows for RALOs to include
    individuals directly and to propose other ways individuals could
    participate. Regarding basing the At-Large infrastructure on 5 regions,
    this is required by the bylaws and is ICANNs basic approach to diversity.
    We will note this issue as something to examine during review of the
    At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations.