1. I support the comments of CDT, Common Cause,
PCMLP
and Professor Myung Koo Kang sent to the forum on Friday
December
22.2. Suggest that the period allowed for any public comment and
response
regarding the work of the At-Large Study Committee
and ICANN Board regarding
the At-Large review should be
60days.
Particularly, a longer comment period
would allow more time for
translation and dissemination of relevant information
among
non-native English speakers, and for responses from all
members of
the community to be submitted.
3. Ask that once the Study Committee is established,
it make
available documents in major languages describing (at least)
ICANN's
function and basic structure, a history of At Large and
the purpose of the At
Large study.
Important that we all have the same basic understanding of
what
ICANN is and what the purpose of At Large has been if the study
and
whatever may emerge as the future At Large is to be
successful. Misunderstanding
about ICANN's work, particularly
that ICANN was an organ of global Internet governance
was one
of the reasons for some of the intense electioneering that
occurred
during the recent At Large elections.
4. Board comment. The Staff Proposal suggests
that a minimum
of one day be set aside for the board to discuss the staff report,
etc. Thank you.
In addition, I hope the Board will commit to issuing
a detailed
report explaining its decisions regarding the future of At Large.
A membership, representation of Internet users in ICANN, has
been an essential
part of the organization's structure since the
White Paper. The US government
has made commitments to
there being an international membership. ICANN's founding
documents committed to a strong At Large representation.
Should the
ICANN Board decided to step back from these
commitments, they should explain
why. A staff report would be
inadequate, as would ordinary Board meeting
minutes, scribe
notes and multimedia records. For such a fundamental change
in structure the Board should explain its actions fully and in an
open manner.
5. As the staff's recommendations rightly propose, the Internet
community
should be consulted on the nature of At Large, and it
should be the consensus
of the community that decides the way
forward for At Large. However, we
should be sure that the
"community" is fairly represented in this process and
those
claiming to represent sections of the community have the right to
make
those claims.
ICANN's 3 Supporting Organization (SO) should be required to
explain
their representative structure: how they elect their
representatives, the selection
processes involved, etc.
Questions to elicit relevant information should be included
in the
SO reviews currently underway.
For example, questions might ask
about selection and election
processes, how various stakeholder groups/communities
are
consulted and involved in decision making processes, what
outreach each
has undertaken to identify and involve their
stakeholders, and what ongoing commitment
they have to
ensure that they continue to be representative their relevant
stakeholders
groups.
Thank you.
Adam Peake
GLOCOM, Tokyo
http://www.glocom.org
http://www.glocom.ac.jp