Return to At Large Study Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: HiroHOTTA
Date/Time: Wed, December 27, 2000 at 5:04 PM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.72 using Windows NT 5.0
Score: 5
Subject: Comments on At Large


Here we send our comments on At Large. The members who created this
Comments were:
   Hiro Hotta
   Tsugizo Kubo
   Yumi Ohashi
   Shinichi Kondo
   Hirofumni Kurokawa
   Takashi Arano
Please note that the comments were elaborated in very limited
amount of time, so further discussion should be convened.

Comment on At Large

1.      We basically support the idea of At Large.

2.      First of all, the nature of At Large, its purpose and role, should be
re-evaluated. After that, decisions on details such as the appropriate
number of members should be dealt with. To be precise, "question e"
should be primarily discussed.


Supposing that the following assumption on the purpose and role of At
Large are fulfilled, our argument below progresses.

a)      Role of the At Large is to audit the opinion of the nine
representatives of each Supporting Organization(SO).
b) Followings are assumed premise to the above statement.
  -SO does not represent the entire interest or the whole stake-holders.
  -At Large Directors represents the individual, and not the organization.

Following answers to questions a-e are based on the assumption of the above
role and condition of the At Large Directors.

a. Should the ICANN Board include At Large Directors?

We discussed counter-plan to establish the new auditors or advisory
committee. However, in order to perform its audit function at the most, it is
essential that the auditors/committee should have both the authority
and duty to state their views to the Board, which is the final decision organ.

After all, the most simple and practical solution we reached is not to
establish a new organization, but to authorize the stated function to the
At Large Directors.

Also, it is better to include the At Large Directors in the ICANN
Board to bring the variety of ways of thinking into the Board.

b:If so, how many such At Large Directors should there be?

Nine would be the ideal number that enables them to function as an
audit organ capable of overturning the SO Directors' opinion.

Yet on the other hand, concerning the current consensus building of
the ICANN Board, we think it is more important that the Board has a
variety of insights and opinions, rather than being influenced by

Consequently, we suggest to be chosen five directors from each of the
ICANN designated regions of the world. However, whether the number
"5" is appropriate or not should be discussed further considering the
population or the number of (potential) Internet users.

c:How should any such At Large Directors be selected?
d: If selection by an At Large membership is recommended, what
processes and procedures should be used to create that At Large
membership? What minimum criteria, if any, should be required for
membership? Precisely how should an At Large membership select At
Large Directors?

Even if indirect election were adopted, At Large Members would be
selecting the representatives, therefore similar problems would
rise again.

Moreover, it may cause extra problems such as allocating a number of
Representatives to each constituency.

Therefore, we concluded that a direct election is the best and most
simple way to be conducted.

As for the membership requirement, we support the existing one.

e: If an At Large membership is to exist, what should its
structure, role and functions be?

We suggest collecting a minimum amount of membership fee to ensure
members being liable and aware of issues.

Collected fees should be used for fair election operation, and for
providing related information or arranging meetings.

From the view of equality, Membership fee should be decided, depending
on GDP or the other related figures, however we have not reached a
concrete conclusion yet.

As for the role of At Large Directors, it is the top priority to be
discussed again, thus we commented at the outset of this document.