Return to At Large Study Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Adam Peake
Date/Time: Wed, December 27, 2000 at 8:20 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Macintosh
Score: 5
Subject: Comments on staff's recommendations


        1.  I support the comments of CDT, Common Cause,
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

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