Comments on ICANN's proposed
"
May 21, 1999
By Thomas Lowenhaupt
I'm interested in seeing that the Internet's governance system
represents all those upon which the net has a social or economic impact.
That's a very large group.
I'm concerned enough about this to consider running for one of the 9
At-Large member positions to ICANN's Board of Directors. And, assuming
ICANN and the final "Principles of the At-large Membership" present, at
minimum, a representative and open organization as described in the
White Paper, I'm likely to be an active candidate for an ICANN Board of
Directors position.
In the following 16,272 bytes I'm going to test the MAC's recommended 18
Principles against this contingent candidacy. (My comments are to the
May 6 recommendations of ICANN's Membership Advisory Committee.)
(Italic = MAC's May 6th Proposals) (Standard = My comments)
1. At-large membership should primarily represent those
individuals and organizations that are not represented by
the Supporting Organizations (SOs). The goals of the
at-large membership are as follows:
(a) to include any Internet user with access and
verifiable identity in order to reflect the global
diversity of users (membership should not be limited to
IP address or domain name holders),
(b) to elect Directors to the ICANN Board by procedures
that are valid and authentic,
(c) to ensure that ICANN�s corporate structure operates
for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, is
not captured, and continues to provide fair and
proportional representation of the entire user community,
(d) to provide input from the user community to the ICANN
Directors and
(e) to do so in a cost-efficient manner.
COMMENT #1
First, as a domain name owner (or is that holder?), small business
operator, trademark owner, and an ISP of sorts, many SO constituencies
could claim to represent me. And I'm concerned that my At-large
membership might be challenged on the basis that I'm "already
represented by X constituency" and therefore not qualified for at-large
membership.
Likewise, I could challenge just about anyone's membership right on the
basis of existing SO representation.
I'd like to see language indicating that individuals should not be
excluded from membership merely because an SO claims to represent them.
Perhaps the "primarily" in Principle 1 was intended to serve this
purpose, but it remains unclear.
Second, a basic plank of my candidacy would be a commitment to change
the restrictive clause that limits At-large membership to "any Internet
user".
We all recognize that the Internet will have an enormous impact on
everyone living on the planet. It should not be the exclusive club of
those who choose (or can afford) to use it on a regular basis. At-large
membership must be opened to all. Let me try to strengthen this point by
raising some questions about other realms:
Should the pedestrian have a say on how highways are designed, used,
and funded?
Should civilians have a say in the funding, deployment, and operation
of the military?
Should only taxpayers vote?
I'm in favor of universal adult suffrage: All should have a right to
participate in electing the Internet governance team. And, while I
suspect few will avail themselves of this mechanism, its existence will
provide input worthy of our attention.
At the same time I acknowledge that implementation will be difficult and
suggest that, for now, we adopt the following principle,
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that the Internet
is all pervasive and will have a significant impact on every
person on this planet; that all people are thus involved
with the Internet; that all people should have a right to
vote in its governance mechanisms."
And I suggest that we place, on the agenda of the initial meeting of the
elected Board, a discussion on implementing universal suffrage.
Third, I'd remove the existing item (e) and place it in a preamble.
2. At-large membership is open to both individuals and
organizations, however, no organization that has a right to
designate or otherwise directly vote for an SO Director may
register as an at-large Member. �Organization� shall mean
any institution officially recognized as a legal persona
under the laws of the nation where it claims legal
residence. Individuals who are members of the SOs or their
constituencies are welcome to join the at-large membership.
The most feasible protection against capture by interests
that are not representative of the user community at large
is to enroll as many Members as possible.
COMMENT #2
I'm for an "individuals-only" At-large membership. Organizations
may encourage their individual members to join as ICANN At-large
members, but they should gain organizational representation
through SO constituencies.
Which organizations are not currently so represented? Local
government? Education institutions? And anyone else should have
constituencies and representation in the SOs. ICANN should
encourage their formation.
3. It is not recommended that membership fees be assessed at
this time. If membership fees should be assessed in the
future, they shall reflect the economic differences of the
various geographic regions.
COMMENT #3
When I think of membership fees, I think exclusion. I think of
Raphael, the homeless fellow who uses our public library to keep in
touch with his family and in his search for work. What membership fee
would you charge him? I agree, no individual membership fees, ever.
4. Online membership registration procedures should be
favored, however reasonable efforts should be made to
authenticate the identity of applicants. The suggested
procedure for registration is as follows: an online form is
filled out by the applicant who may thereafter be required
to supply physical proof of existence. ICANN will respond by
postal mail sending the applicant a membership
identification code to use for voting and other
transactions. An applicant shall provide the following data
in the application:
name physical mail address e-mail contact (preferably an individual
account)
an organization shall also provide the name of its voting
representative, that representative's e-mail address, and evidence of
legal identity
COMMENT #4
My homeless friend Raphael (and others with financial, social,
religious, or political pressures) might find this physical address
requirement difficult to fulfill. But for the upcoming election, the
loss of some membership might outweigh the potential loss from fraud.
5. Membership shall expire 30 days afer the annual election
of Directors and must be renewed annually. Unless otherwise
specified, renewal will generally be effective upon
electronic confirmation by the member of the accuracy of
existing registration data. Members shall be required to
notify ICANN of any changes of address (e-mail and postal)
during the term of membership. Failure to do so may result
in deletion from the membership list or ineligibility to
vote.
COMMENT #5
I'd like to see a language to require that ICANN be a persistent
participant in the renewal process, perhaps that it be required to
send 3 email membership renewal notices over a six month period.
6. From time to time, ICANN shall sample the membership
applications in order to determine whether the goals of
membership are being met and whether fraudulent
registrations exist in sufficient number as to call into
question the ability of the membership to meet the goals of
Section above. ICANN may take reasonable steps to assure
that these goals are met. Members who submit fraudulent or
inaccurate data shall be deleted from the membership list.
Multiple applications from the same organization or
individual shall be deleted from the list.
COMMENT #6
I think the temporal definition " From time to time" is vague and
provides the opportunity for an existing regime to challenge a
disfavored candidate through an audit process.
I'd rather see the wording as, "On a fixed periodic basis, to be
determined by the initial board, ICANN shall�" This is not to
preclude emergency audits to stop capture, just to make it knows that
only specified exceptional circumstance can justify an irregular
audit.
Additionally, the audit should be performed by an outside,
independent organization.
7. If desired, ICANN may appoint a committee (a) to assist
in soliciting candidates in regions where there are few
candidates or (b) to oversee election details such as
fulfillment of candidate criteria, however it shall not be a
function of such committee to filter, screen or otherwise
evaluate candidates on any grounds other than for failure to
supply the required campaign documentation of Section below,
in a true, accurate and timely fashion.
COMMENT #7
First, the "or" in "ICANN may appoint a committee (a) to assist in
soliciting candidates in regions where there are few candidates or (b)
to oversee election details few candidates" seems to limit ICANN's power
here to either (a) or (b). I'd eliminate it. Both might be necessary in
a single election.
Second, "If desired, ICANN may appoint" No. I don't like this. I'd be
concerned here that a nominating committee will seek to supply
"desirable" candidates that meet the goals of the committee or extant
Board. Board recommended / approved candidates will have an undue
advantage.
I don�t anticipate a paucity of candidates from any region. If there is,
the elected Board should take it up for the second election.
8. Privacy concerns should be foremost in the collection,
safeguarding and use of a Member's data. Except as may be
required by applicable law, no Director, officer or Member
of ICANN shall be permitted to use such personal data for
commercial or other private purpose nor shall any Member's
individual vote be made public.
COMMENT #8
As a candidate I'd be concerned that ICANN would inform me that 31,942
people have registered from country X, and that country X's deep privacy
concerns preclude an audit. Privacy issues must not prevent fair
elections.
In recent days I've followed the difficult discussion on this issue as
led by Kent. And I'd lean ever so slightly toward openness. The elected
board should review the impact of open roll call in its review of the
initial election process.
9. At-large voting shall be on the principle of
one-person-one-vote. An organization shall be limited to
casting one vote on behalf of the entire organization.
Individuals who vote for SO Directors in their capacity as
representatives of SO-member organizations shall also have a
right to vote for at-large Directors in a personal capacity
if they also register as individual at-large Members.
COMMENT #9
Organizations should not have a right to vote. Although this would
provide me with two or three votes, and there's something desirable
about that, in a shallow way, I think it inappropriate.
If organizations are allowed to vote, I might find myself requesting
that every prospective voter (of the human type) look to cast additional
organization votes on my behalf.
No, this is a bad idea. No at-large votes for organizations.
Organizations belong in the SOs.
10. The at-large membership shall consist of a single voting
class. A Member may not vote in any election that occurs
less than one month after the Member has been registered.
COMMENT #10
I suppose capture and the time needed verify membership is the issue
here. But I'll need time to get my members/voters signed up. So the
time to election, i.e., the time from announcement to the Election
Day, at least initially, must be at least three months.
end part 1.
