[Comments] ALS and RALO

["YJ Park" <yjpark@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

From:YJ Park, Internet User, a member of ICANNatlarge.org
To: ALAC/ICANN
Date: April. 22. 2003(Resend upon the request on April 27)
Re: At-Large Structures, and Proposed Guidelines for Regional At-Large
Organizations' (RALOs) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN

------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to thank ALAC members for offering comments from Internet
users. I hereby provide my observations based on my five-year experience
with ICANN since 1999.

1. Strong concerns in ALS and Individual Users.

The concept of Internet users' direct partcipation was introduced to
facilitate their partcipation not to block individual users' participation.
According to the proposal, however, an individual who isn't associate
with any specific "qualified" organization, it seems almost "impossible"
for them to participate in ICANN process as At-Large members which
is against the very concept.

On the other hand, there is a "non-commercial users constituency(NCUC)"
within the GNSO/ICANN structure and this proposal reminds me of building
another version of non-profit(commercial) organizations' constituency.

Even though the proposal emphasizes on somewhat open-end participation,
it's a bit unclear how an individual user can participate in this process if
she/he intentionally chooses not to be associate with any specific
organization.

"Each RALO's Memorandum of Understanding 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."

What if those two different membership application processes are accepted,
would there be any difference between an individual who is associated with
an ALS and an independent individual? These are all unclear.

In conclusion, at-large structure should be still as open as possible to the
individual users under the umbrellar of designated At-Large constituency.
Therefore, Internet users can participate in the structure whenever they
want to.

2. The concept of arbitrary "five" Geographical division and its following
representation should be reconsidered.

merits: Geographical division can be comparatively easy to be managed.
demerits: Geographical division cannot reflect balanced views or
representation. i..e. A certain region categorized in the proposed draft
currently hits almost a half of world population.

3. Proposal
"At-Large Constituency divided according to the number of Internet Users"
can be considered as one of options.

Every two years at some point, the number of Internet users worldwide is
expected to be reported to ICANN.

Based on the reported statistics, ICANN divides "eight"(under the scenario
that At-Large members are going to resume their rights to elect BoDs) or
whatever agreed numbers later.

merits: This proposal can represent the Internet users in a more balanced
manner.
demerits: This may be a bit difficult to be managed.

4. ICANN should prepare some detailed mechanism such as financial
support to make At-Large members meaningfully participate in the ICANN
process and let their views reflected in the decision-making process.

5. Working Language should be diversified.

The proposal says formal documents should be processed in English
which is not the first language for many Internet users around the world.

6. In case of ALS proposal goes through......

ALS membership evaluation

Even though ALS membership criteria evaluation process is managed
by the ALAC members, the whole evaluation process record should be
transparently archived and open to the Internet users.

7. In case of RALO proposal goes through...

The RALO will select 2 individuals from its region (the individuals may
not be citizens of the same country) to serve as members of the ALAC.

"may" --> "can" Therefore, we have to make sure the representatives
have more balanced structure.

8. Question: Should a minimum level of openness be required before a
RALO's MoU becomes effective? YES.

If so, what should this threshold look like?

Before MoU is signed by RALO and ICANN, the draft MoU should be
reviewed by the RALO members and give at-large members chance
to make comments.

According to the proposal, RALO should include minimum of 3 certified
At-Large Structures based in at least 2 different countries within the
RALO's Geographic Region.

What if RALO does have minimum of 500 individual members in at least
2 different countries within the RALO's geographica Region?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your attentions.