Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group on ALAC ... · ICANN ALAC Review WG Final report 9...

ICANNALACReviewWG Finalreport9June2009

1

ReviewoftheAt‐LargeAdvisoryCommittee

FinalReport

oftheALACReviewWorkingGroupon

ALACImprovements

9June2009


2

1.BACKGROUNDANDCHRONOLOGY 3

2.SUMMARY:FINALREPORT‐KEYPOINTS 6

3. GENERALCOMMENTS 7

3.1. DOESTHEALACHAVEACONTINUINGPURPOSEINTHEICANNSTRUCTURE? 73.2. WHATCHANGESINSTRUCTUREOROPERATIONSAREDESIRABLETOIMPROVEALAC’SEFFECTIVENESS? 83.2.1. CHANGESWITHINALACANDAT‐LARGE 83.2.2. CHANGESWITHINTHEBROADERICANNSTRUCTURE 13

4. SPECIFICRESPONSESTOTHEWESTLAKERECOMMENDATIONS 19

APPENDIX1:BGCALACREVIEWWORKINGGROUPCHARTER(APPROVEDBYTHEBOARDON30APRIL2008) 25

APPENDIX2:ALACREVIEWWG‐BRIEFSUMMARYOFCONSULTATIONANDFEEDBACKSOFAR 27

APPENDIX3:CONCURRENCEFROMKARLAUERBACH,MEMBEROFTHEALACREVIEWWG 33


3

1.BackgroundandChronologyAspartofitsprogramofreviews,ICANNhasundertakenareviewoftheAtLargeAdvisoryCommittee(ALAC),whichistheAdvisoryCommitteetotheBoardandtherepresentativebodyfor“AtLarge”comprisedof“AtLargeStructures”organizedintoRegionalAtLargeOrganizations(RALO).

ThesereviewsarepartofICANN’sprogramofcontinuousimprovementandareintendedtoensureanindependentexaminationoftheroleandoperationofkeyelementsofICANN.Theyareconductedinanobjectivemannerbyindependentreviewers,underguidancefromtheBoardoneachreview’stermsofreference,andwiththeopportunityforpubliccommentontheresultsofthereviewsandanyproposedimprovements.

AsspecifiedinArticleIV,Section4ofICANN’sBylaws,the“goalofthereview,tobeundertakenpursuanttosuchcriteriaandstandardsastheBoardshalldirect,shallbetodetermine(i)whetherthatorganizationhasacontinuingpurposeintheICANNstructure,and(ii)ifso,whetheranychangeinstructureoroperationsisdesirabletoimproveitseffectiveness.”

InJanuary2008,theICANNBoardappointedWestlakeConsultingLimitedtoundertaketheindependentexternalreviewoftheAt‐LargeAdvisoryCommittee.ThereportsummarizingfindingsfromtheindependentreviewandcontainingproposalsforactionwaspublishedinJuly2008.

FollowingaBoardresolutionattheLisbonmeetinginMarch2007,theBoardGovernanceCommittee(BGC)adoptedaWorkingGroupmodeltofacilitatethereviewprocess.TheWorkingGroupdrawsontheexpertiseofcurrentBoardmembersandformerBoardmemberstoundertakethistask.

InJanuary2008,theBGCselected,andtheBoardapproved,thefollowingindividualstoserveontheBGC'sALACReviewWorkingGroup(WG):HaraldAlvestrand,KarlAuerbach,VittorioBertola,TriciaDrakes(Chair),ThomasNarten,NiiQuaynorandJean‐JacquesSubrenat.InApril2008,theBGCrecommendedandtheBoardapprovedtheCharterfortheWorkingGroup.TheCharterisincludedasAppendix1.

AccordingtotheCharter,theALACReviewWGhasbeenformedtohelpensurethattheevaluator'sfinalreport(independentreview)containsthedataandinformationneededtoconducttheworkoftheBGCandtheWG,and(primarily)toadvisetheBGConwhetheranychangeisneededforAt‐Large.TheWGwillconsidertheIndependentReviewer'sfinalreport,Boardinput,andcommentsfromstakeholdersandthepublic,andwill:

• AdvisetheBGCwhether,ingeneral,theALAChasacontinuingpurposeintheICANNstructure;and


4

• Ifso,consultbroadlyandadvisetheBGCwhetheranychangeinstructureoroperationsisdesirabletoimproveitseffectiveness‐‐andrecommendtotheBGCacomprehensiveproposaltoimprovetheinvolvementoftheindividualInternetusercommunityinICANN.

InOctober2008,theWGpresentedits“Mid‐pointConsultationReport”fordiscussionwiththeICANNcommunity.Thismid‐pointreportpresentedtheWG's"initialthinking"onthequestionsunderreviewfollowingthepublicationoftheexternalreviewreportincludingadiscussionofareasofemergingagreement,possiblerecommendations,andquestionsthatneedtobeaddressed.Itdidnotreachanydefinitiverecommendationsorconclusionsatthattime.Asummaryoftheconsultationsundertakeniscontainedinanappendixtothereport.

InNovember2008theBoardapprovedtheformationofanew“StructuralImprovementsCommittee”withresponsibilityfortheoversightoftheReviewsasrequiredundertheICANNByLaws.

InFebruary2009,theWGpresenteditsdraftFinalReportoftheALACReviewWorkingGrouponALACImprovementsfordiscussionandconsultationwiththeICANNCommunity,includingattheICANNMeetinginMexicoinMarch2009.Theperiodforconsultationandpubliccommentclosedon30April2009.

ThisistheWG’sFinalReport(datedJune2009)whichwillnowbeissuedandsubmittedtotheStructuralImprovementsCommitteeforconsiderationandsubmissiontotheBoardfordecision.

ThisFinalReportreflectstheunanimousconsensusofallmembersoftheWG.OnememberoftheWGrequestedthatastatementofhispersonalviewsbeincludedintheReport.ThisstatementisincludedintheAppendixwiththeunanimousagreementofallmembersoftheWG.

TheWGisawarethatthereareotherreviewscurrentlyunderwayandthattheremaybesomeinterdependenciesbetweenthesereviews.However,theWGisverystronglyoftheopinionthatalmostalloftherecommendationsinthisreportshouldbeabletobeimplementedwithouthavingtowaitfortheoutcomesofotherreviewstobefinalised.

Inparticular,theWGbelievethatBoardapprovalforALACtoselectavotingmemberormembersoftheICANNBoardisofparamountimportance.

Belowisanextractfromthe“PreliminaryReportoftheBoardResolutionsofitsmeetingon21May2009:Item7(c)AtLargeSeat:

TheBoarddiscussedtherequestoftheStructuralImprovementsCommitteetoagreeinprinciplewiththeproposalfortheAtLargeAdvisoryCommitteetoselectavotingmemberormembersoftheICANNBoard.TheBoardnotedthatwhiletheBoardisnotopposedtotheprincipleofhavingcivilsocietygivenavotingvoiceontheBoard,theBoardisconcernedaboutassuringthat


5

implementationcouldbeachievedinacarefulandsystematicmatter.TheBoardrequeststheStructuralImprovementsCommitteetoprovidedetailedscenariosandoptionsforsuchimplementationpriortoformallyagreeingtothisprincipleandconsideringmeasuresforimplementation.TheBoardthankstheStructuralImprovementsCommitteeforitscontinuingworkontheALACreview

AnotherkeyissuetobeagreedisthemechanismbywhichtheproposedALACselectedBoardmemberswillbechosen.

TheALACReviewWGpageishttp://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/


6

2.Summary:FinalReport‐KeyPoints1. TheALAChasacontinuingpurposeintheICANNstructure.Thiscontinuingpurpose

hasfourkeyelements:o providingadviceonpolicy;o providinginputintoICANNoperationsandstructure;o partofICANN’saccountabilitymechanismso anorganisingmechanismforsomeofICANN’soutreach

ThesectionoftheICANNBylawsthatdealswithALACshouldbechangedtoreflectthispurpose.

Organisation

2. AtLargeshouldbeallocatedtwovotingseatsontheICANNBoard

3. TheALAC‐RALO‐ALSstructureshouldremaininplacefornow

Effectivenessandparticipation

4. EducatingandengagingtheALSsshouldbeanimmediatepriority;complianceshouldbealongertermgoal

5. ALACshoulddevelopstrategicandoperationalplans(includingperformancecriteriaandcostinformation)aspartofICANN’splanningprocess

6. MoreeffortneedstobeputintodevelopingaccuratecostmodelsforAtLargeactivity

7. ALACshouldbeencouragedtomakeitsownchoiceoftoolsforcollaborativework8. Thepubliccommentperiodshouldbekeptat30daysexceptinspecial

circumstances,inwhichcaseALACmayrequestanextensionto45days9. ICANNshouldstrengthenitstranslationandinterpretationprocesses

RelationshipwithotherICANNentities

10. ALACastherepresentativebodyforAtLargeistheprimaryorganisationalhomeforthevoiceandconcernsoftheindividualInternetuserinICANNprocesses,althoughICANN’smultistakeholdermodelprovidesopportunityforindividualuserstochoosetoparticipateinmanyotherwaysintheICANNprocess.

11. TheWGsuggeststhatthereneedstobeaclearstatementfromtheBoardthatrecognisestheplaceofAtLargeastheprimaryorganisationalhomeforindividualInternetusers,andthatclarifiestherelationshipbetweenALACandtheUserHousecurrentlybeingdevelopedwithintheGNSO

12. ICANNshoulddevelopamechanismforallowingthevoiceofthoserecognisedbodieswhorepresentconsumerintereststobeheardatcriticalpointsinkeydecisionsandtoprovideinputintopolicyprocesses.

13. AstheprovisionofadviceonpolicyispartofALAC’spurpose,ALACshouldstrivetoprovidepolicyadviceonanyissuesthataffectindividualInternetusers.ProcessesforprovidingadviceonpolicyshouldbestrengthenedwithinALACforthedevelopmentofpolicyadvice,withinSOsforrequestinginputfromALAConpolicyissuesandfromSOs,ACsandtheBoardtoprovidefeedbackonhowALACadvicehasbeenused.


7

3. Generalcomments

3.1. DoestheALAChaveacontinuingpurposeintheICANNstructure?

TheWGhasdevelopeditsresponsetotheWestlakereportwiththeunderlyingprinciplethatALACdoeshaveacontinuingpurposeintheICANNstructureastheprimaryorganizationalhomeforthevoiceandconcernsoftheindividualInternetuserinICANN.Therehasbeenconsiderabledebateaboutwhetherthe“individualInternetuser”istheappropriatefocusofALACattention.Inthecontextofthisdocument,theWGbelievesthatanInternetuserisahumanbeingwhoismateriallyaffectedbytheInterneteitherdirectlythroughuseofanInternetbrowserorsimilarinterface,orindirectlythroughtheuseofservicesthatrunoverInternetprotocols.WithanothertwodoublingsofInternetusage,everyhumanbeingwillbeanInternetuserandthereforetheterms“Internetuser”and“humanbeing”areconverging.TheWGhasadoptedthisbroaderdefinition(ratherthan,forexample,registrant)becauseitbelievesthatmanyofthepoliciesdevelopedthroughtheICANNprocess,whileoftentechnicalinnature,haveanimpactonindividualusersoftheInternet.ItistheirvoiceandtheirconcernsthatneedtobeincludedandheardintheICANNprocess.TheALACservesthefollowingfourpurposeswithintheICANNstructure:adviceonpolicydevelopment;inputintoICANNoperationsandstructure;asoneaspectofICANN’saccountabilitymechanisms;asanorganizingmechanismforsomeofICANN’soutreachactivity.ProvidingadviceonpolicyisacriticalaspectofALAC’srole.ThisistheroleofALACasdescribedintheICANNBylaws.TheWGabsolutelysupportsthisviewasALAC’sprimaryrole.Forthistobesuccessful,theremustberobustprocesseswithinALACforprovidingpolicyadvicewhichaccuratelyreflectstheviewsofindividualInternetusers.Inaddition,thepolicydevelopmentprocessesinotherpartsofICANNmustbestructuredinsuchawaythattheviewsoftheindividualInternetuserarerequestedandacknowledged.TherearemultiplepolicyarenaswherethevoiceandconcernsoftheindividualInternetuserneedtobeheard.TheGNSOPolicyDevelopmentProcessisprobablytheareawheretheALACismostlikelytobeprovidinginput.However,theremaywellbeoccasionswhereALACmaywishtoprovideadviceonmattersbeforetheASOandccNSO.ThesecondimportantaspectofALAC’sroleisprovidinginputintoICANN’soperationsandstructure.ICANNisnowamuchlargerorganizationwithmoredevelopedinstitutionalprocessesthanwasthecaseatthetimeoftheformationofALAC.ICANN’splanningprocesses,whilestillevolving,arenowreasonablywellestablished.AsthevehicleforthevoiceandconcernsoftheindividualInternetuser,ALACneedstohaveinputintotheseplanningprocesses.Similarly,ALACneedstocontributetotheorganizationalstructurediscussionsthataretakingplaceasICANN


8

undertakesreviewsoftheBoardandtheSupportingOrganizationsandAdvisoryCommittees.ThevoiceoftheindividualInternetuserisanimportantinputintothisprocess.ThethirdaspectofALAC’srole(althoughinsomesensesthemostimportant)isaspartofICANN’saccountabilityprocesses.AsthekeyrepresentativeoftheindividualInternetuserinthebroaderICANNprocess,ALACshouldhaveavoiceinthemechanismsbeingdevelopedthroughthePresident’sStrategyCommitteeandothermechanismstoprovidegreateraccountability.Althoughtheexactshapeofthesemechanismsisnotyetdecided,thevoiceandconcernsoftheindividualInternetuserneedtobeincludedasanimportantpartofanymechanismthatisdeveloped.ThefourthpurposethatALACservesisastheorganizingmechanismforsomeofICANN’soutreachactivity.ThroughALAC’sinteractionswiththeALSstructures,ICANNisabletoreachouttothousandsofInternetusersacrosstheglobe.Assuch,ALAChasanimportantroletoplayincoordinatingandfacilitatingsomeofICANN’soutreachactivity.TheAtLargeSummitbeingheldinconjunctionwiththeMexicomeetingisanexcellentexampleofthistypeofactivity.ThisoutreachmayalsoextendtocapacitybuildingasAtLargeactivitycoordinatedthroughALACeducatesInternetusersontheissuesthatunderliepolicyandotherdebatesintheICANNarena.ThisdiscussionofpurposefocusesontheneedsandinterestsoftheindividualInternetuser,andALACthroughtheRALOandALSstructureistheprimaryorganizationalhomeforthosevoices.Inadditiontoindividualuservoices,thereareinmanyplacesorganizedgroupswhichrepresenttheinterestsofconsumers,insomeplaceswithofficialstandingorgovernmentsupportandusuallywithamissionfocusedonconsumerprotection.WhiletheALACdoesnotrepresentthesevoices,theremaybemeritinincludingthemmoreformallyinICANN’sprocesses.

3.2. WhatchangesinstructureoroperationsaredesirabletoimproveALAC’seffectiveness?

IndiscussingchangesinALAC’sstructureoroperationsthatmightimproveeffectiveness,theWGhasconsideredtwoaspects:changeswithinALACandAtLargeandchangesinbroaderICANNstructureandprocesses.AllofthesechangesareintendedtoimprovetheeffectivenesswithwhichthevoiceoftheInternetuserisheardinICANN,particularlyasitpertainstothefourpurposesoutlinedabove.

Inpreparingthisdocument,theWGisverymindfuloftheexcellentworkthathastakenplaceinrecenttimestoimprovetheefficiencyandeffectivenessofALACandtheAtLargegenerally.TheWGwouldliketocommendthiswork.ItpositionsALACextremelywellforthesuccessfulimplementationoftherecommendationscontainedinthisreport.


9

3.2.1. ChangeswithinALACandAt‐Large3.2.1.1. AtLargestructure

ThecurrentstructureoftheAtLargewaspartofthedesignofthe2003evolutionandreformprocess.However,thelastoftheRALOagreementswassignedinJune2007.ThecompleteAtLargestructurehasineffectonlyexistedsincethatdate.Furthermore,theALAChasmadesignificantchangesandimprovementsoverthepast12monthsandtheeffectsoftheseareyettobefullyrealised.

ManymembersoftheWGfeelthatthecurrentsystemdoesimpedetheflowofinformationtoandfromtheindividualInternetuseronsomeoccasions.However,onbalance,theWGbelievesthattheRALOstructureneedstocontinueasanimportantpartofALAC’sorganizationalframework.

AtthisstageofALAC’sdevelopment,theALAC‐RALO‐ALSstructureprovidesamodeoforganizingactivitythatisshowingsignsofworkingwell,especiallyinsomeregions.Thismodelneedsmoretimetodevelopandmature.ThechallengeforAtLargeduringthetimeuntilthenextreviewistobuildonthesuccessesofthecurrentstructuretofocusonprovidingtimelyadviceonpolicymattersandinputintoICANNoperationsandstructurethatisrepresentativeofthevoiceandconcernsoftheindividualInternetuser.

TheWGrecommendsthatthecurrentALAC‐RALO‐ALSstructureberetaineduntilthenextreview.TheWGencouragesALACandtheRALOstocontinuetoexplorewaysthatindividualuserscanbeinvolvedintheprocesswithouthavingtobecomepartofanALS.

3.2.1.2. Developmentofpolicyinput

TheeffectiveprovisionofadvicefromanindividualInternetuserperspectiveintoICANNpolicydevelopmentprocessesisanessentialfunctionofALAC.

WithregardtothepolicyinputprocesseswithinAtLarge,theWGbelievesthatitisabsolutelyfundamentalthatAtLargeprocessescapturetheconcernsoftheindividualInternetuserandatthesametimeacknowledgesthatgatheringinputonoftenverytechnicalpolicyissuesfromagloballydistributedaudienceofindividualInternetusersisnoeasymatter.TherearemanyelementsthatneedtobeputintoplacefortheAtLargepolicyadviceprocesstobesuccessful.ThefirststepistoacknowledgethattheprovisionofadviceisacriticalaspectofALAC’sroleandtoorganizeactivityandeffortaroundthat.Anotherimportantcomponentiseducation.StaffhaveanimportantroletoplayhereinhelpingtodevelopmaterialthatexplainspolicyissuesinwaysthatmakesensetotheindividualInternetuser.Whilethisisnotatrivialtask,itis


10

criticaltothesuccessoftheAtLargeprocessandthisaspectshouldbeconsideredwhentheallocationofresourcesisbeingconsidered.TheWGbelievesthatALACshouldbeempoweredtomakeitsowndecisionsandconductitsownexperimentsaboutthebestwaytoreachouttoindividualInternetusersonpolicyissues,knowingthatthesuccessorfailureofAtLargewillbejudgedmostlyonitsabilitytoproviderepresentativepolicyadvice.

TheWGalsobelievesthatthereisaneedforsubstantialimprovementinthelevelsofparticipationbyALACmembersinALACpolicyprocessesandoperationalmatters.UnderthecurrentChair,significantimprovementhastakenplaceandtheWGwishestocommendandsupportthese.However,thereisstillalongwaytogobasedondatafromrecentALACactivity.ALACandAtLargemustfocustheireffortsonconsistentlyprovidingrepresentativeviewsofindividualInternetusersintoICANNpolicyprocessesandoperationaldebates.

3.2.1.3. Planning

TheWGremainssupportiveoftherecommendationsaboutplanningcontainedintheWestlakereport.PlanningbothatastrategicandanoperationallevelisextremelyimportantfortheongoingsuccessandimprovementofALAC.IntheviewoftheWG,itmakessensethatthisplanningeffortbealignedtothebroaderICANNplanningprocess.Theremayofcoursebesomeplanningactivitiesthatareseparate,outsideorbeyondtheICANNprocess,butaspartoftheICANNcommunity,ALACmusttakepartinICANN’sprocesses.ThisisparticularlyrelevantwhereALACisseekingresourcesforparticularinitiativesasdiscussedinthefollowingsection.

Fromthefeedbackreceivedduringtheconsultationprocess,itseemsthatALAChashadsomedegreeoffrustrationinitspreviousattemptstoengagewiththebroaderICANNplanningprocess.Thisisanareawherestaffsupport(bothALACstaffandseniormanagement)hasanimportantroletoplayinguidingtheALACinputthroughtheprocess.

TheWGrecommendsthataspartofICANN’sannualplanningcycle,ALACworkwithICANNstafftoprepareinputtothestrategicplanningprocessandanALACbudgetwhichbestcontributestotheachievementofICANN’sgoals.

WithregardtotheimplementationoftheWGrecommendationsonALACandAtLargeinvolvementinplanning,theWGrecommendsthatthiscommenceassoonaspossible.Iffeasible,theALACshouldbeinvolvedinthedevelopmentofthe2009‐10OperatingPlan.StaffshouldworkwithALACtoinvolveALACfullyinthedevelopmentoftheJuly2010–June2013StrategicPlan.WorkonthiswillstartinJuly2009.


11

3.2.1.4. Resourcingandstaffsupport

TherecommendationintheWestlakereportfocusedontheprovisionofextrastafffortheALAC.IntheconsultationprocessthattheWGhasundertakenstartingattheParismeetinginJune2008,itbecameclearthatwhilestaff(andpossiblyextrastaff)hadavaluableroletoplayinimprovingtheeffectivenessofALAC,theunderlyingissuewasthatofresourcesinabroadersense.TheWGbelievesthatALACshouldbeprovidedwithadditionalresources,butthatneednotnecessarilymeanmorestaff.Particularlyintermsofitsoutreachactivity,itmaybethecasethatadditionalfunding(forexamplefortravelandpublications)mightbemoreusefulinsomecircumstancesthanadditionalstaff.

Ifthevalueofthisapproachistoberealised,itiscriticalthatextraresourcesbetiedtocleardeliverablesthroughawelldetailedplanningprocess.Thesectionabovetreatstheplanningprocessingreaterdepth.

WherestaffareemployedtosupportALAC,theWGrecognisesthattheywillbeICANNemployeesandwillthereforehaveareportingandmanagementlinewithintheICANNstaffstructure.However,theWGisalsosupportiveoftheideathatthestaffsupportforALACshouldbedoneinclosecollaborationwithALACitself.Ifmorestaffaretobeputinplace,considerationshouldbegiventoemployingsomeofthosestaffinregionssothattheybringtherequiredculturalunderstandingandarebestabletosupportoutreachefforts.

Overthepastfewyears,theALAChasdevelopedastrongerworkingrelationshipwiththepolicystaffandspecificallyanewtrustedrelationshipwiththosethatdirectlysupporttheirwork.RelationshipswithotherICANNstaffandwiththecommunitygenerallyalsocontinuetodevelopastheALACstructureandprocessesmatureandALAC,ALSandRALOMembersbecomemoredirectlyinvolvedinICANNbriefings,activitiesandpolicydevelopmentprocessesandasthecommunitycomestounderstandthatALAChasanimportantcontributiontomaketoICANN.ItisimportantfortheongoinghealthofICANNasawholethatallpartiesworktobuildsolidlevelsoftrustthatallowtaskstobeundertakentogetherinaneffectivemanner.

Inconsideringfundingforinitiatives,ALACshouldexaminehowitcanleverageitsvolunteerforcetohelpadvanceICANN’smissionincosteffectiveways.StaffandBoardshouldalsobeopentothepossibilityofcosteffectivewaysofleveragingALACresourcesforoverallICANNbenefit.

TheWGrecommendsthatconsiderationbegiventoincreasingresourcesavailabletoALACbasedoninitiativesproposedthroughtheplanningprocess.Theseresourcesmayinvolveextrastaffand/orextrafunding,dependingontheparticularinitiativeandthedesiredoutcomes.


12

Incaseswherethebudgetinvolvesemploymentofstaff,thepriorityshouldbetoemploystaffsothattheyareabletoworkinthelanguage,cultureandtimezoneoftheregion.TheWGsuggeststhatthesestaffbeemployedandlocatedonthegroundintheregionswhereverpossible.

3.2.1.5. Toolsforcommunicationandotherneeds

Asaculturallyandlinguisticallydiversevolunteerorganisation,ALAChasneedofarangeoftoolstoassistwithcommunicationforitsoperationsandpolicydevelopment.Thisisafieldwheretechnologieschangequicklyandnewdevelopmentsappearoften.TheWGisoftheviewthatthebestjudgesofthetoolsthatwouldbemostappropriatefortheALACareALACthemselves.Clearly,anysuchdecisionneedstobemadewithinbudgetconstraintsandinconsiderationofthetechnologyplatformsusedinotherplaceswithintheICANNcommunity.Staffsupportwillbeveryusefulinthisarea.

TheWGrecommendsthatALACshouldbeallowedtochoosecommunicationandothertoolsthatitbelieveswillbestmeetitsneedswithinbudgetconstraintsandinconsiderationoftechnologythatisalreadyinplaceinotherpartsoftheICANNcommunity.

3.2.1.6. Compliance,educationandengagement

ThekeytotheeffectiveinvolvementofendusersintheICANNprocessisoutreachtoengageendusersinICANNissuescombinedwitheducationabouttheICANNprocessandissuesthatareICANN’sconcern.

TheWGsupportsmeasurestofurtherimproveaccountabilityandtransparencywiththeAtLarge,andacknowledgesthegoodworkthatALAChasalreadyundertakeninthisarea.Compliancereviewshavemerit,butinthefirstinstance,effortshouldbeputintoeducatingALSsaboutICANNissuesandencouragingandsupportingthemtocontributetopolicydebates.

3.2.2. ChangeswithinthebroaderICANNstructure3.2.2.1. Changestothepolicyprocess

WithregardtothewaythatALACinputsintopolicydevelopmentaredealtwithinICANNpolicydevelopmentprocesses,theWGisoftheviewthatthecurrentprocessesneedtobestrengthened.ThereisnopointindevelopingrobustprocessesforcollectingandsynthesizingtheviewsofindividualInternetusersinsideAtLargeifthoseviewsarenotproperlyconsideredaspartofpolicydevelopmentprocesses.TheWGthereforerecommendsthatthepolicydevelopmentprocessesoftheGNSO,the


13

ccNSOandtheASObechangedsothattheseorganisationsareresponsibleforreachingouttoAtLargeintheearlystagesoftheirpolicydevelopmentprocesses.Intheirpolicyprocesses,theSupportingOrganisationsshoulddemonstratethattheyhaveobtainedtheviewsofAtLargeandthatthisinputhasbeentakenintoaccount.Onewayofdongthiswouldbetorequiretheinclusionofsomeformof“environmentalimpactstatement”earlyinthepolicydevelopmentprocessthat,amongstotherthings,describestheimpactofthepolicyonInternetusers.

ThisisnottosaythatwhateveradviceAtLargeprovidesmustbefollowed,butratherthattheadviceshouldbeconsidered.Iftheadviceisnotfollowedinthedevelopmentofthepolicy,aresponseshouldbesenttoAtLargewithanexplanation,oranexplanationshouldbeprovidedinthepolicydocumentorintheminutesofthepolicydiscussion.

SimilaracknowledgementandexplanationofhowadvicehasbeenconsideredshouldcomefromtheBoardwhenALACpresentsadvicetotheBoard.

3.2.2.2. Commentperiods

TheWGacknowledgesthatgatheringrepresentativecommentsfromaglobalcommunityonpolicyissuesin30daysisnotaneasytaskandnotestheworkundertakenbyALACandstaffinJune2008whichsuggestedthatdevelopmentofapolicypositiontakesbetween9and11weeks.However,theWGisalsomindfulthatincreasingallcommentperiodsto45dayswouldslowdownICANN’spolicydevelopmentprocessesunnecessarily.Therearetwoapproacheswhichcouldhelpensurethatrepresentativeadviceisprovidedonissuesthatmattermost.

ThefirstisthatAtLargeneedstobeinvolvedasearlyaspossibleonpolicyissues.IfALAConlybeginstoeducatetheAtLargecommunityatthestartofthepubliccommentperiod,thereislittlehopeofgettingrepresentativeadvicefromaglobalmembershipin30days.Educationaboutissuesshouldstartasearlyaspossible.Wherefeasible,earlydraftsofdocumentscouldbesharedsothatAtLargememberscanbeginconsideringtheirresponsebeforethepubliccommentperiodbegins.WhiletheALACwillbeanimportantpartofthisprocess,otherpartsofICANNalsohavearesponsibility.Inparticular,SupportingOrganizationsshouldworkmorecloselywithALACtoinformthemofupcomingpolicyissuesandofthestatusofissuescurrentlyunderdebate.Inthisway,ALACcouldbeginpreparationsandeducationeffortsinadvanceofthecommentperiod.StaffwhosupporttheALACandvariousotherpartsofICANNcouldplayausefulroleinassistingcommunicationacrossgroups,ascouldtheALACliaisons.


14

Oncethisfirststepisinplace,muchofthepressureoncollectingresponsesfromtheAtLargenetworkwillberelieved.However,theremaywellstillbesomeissueswhereanextensionoftimecouldbevaluable.Onthese(hopefullyrare)occasions,ALACshouldhavethepowertorequestanextensionofthecommentperiodto45dayswhentheybelievethattheindividualInternetuserconcernsareparticularlyimportantinanissue.ThiswillallowALACtogathermoreextensiveinputortaketheadditionaltimetodevelopconsensuspositionsondifficulttopicsonasmallernumberofissueswherethisreallymatters,ratherthanhavingablanketincreaseto45daysforallcommentperiods.

TheWGrecommendsthatALACbeginworkonpolicyissuesasearlyaspossiblesothatitsmembersareeducatedaboutissuesbeforethecommencementoftheformalcommentperiod.TheWGencouragesALACtoworkwithotherSOsandACs,throughitsliaisonsandotherwise,sothatitisawareofupcomingissues.

TheWGrecommendsthatALACshouldbeallowedtorequestthatcommentperiodsonpolicyissuesandoperationalissuesbeextendedto45daysincriticalsituationswheretheALACbelievesthattheissueisofsufficientimportancethatitneedstodevelopatrueconsensusposition.TheBoardshouldmonitorthefrequencyofsuchrequeststoensurethatitisnotmisused.

3.2.2.3. VotingseatsontheICANNBoard

Atthepresenttime,reviewsareunderwayfortheNominatingCommitteeandtheBoard.Atthetimeofwritingthisreport,theoutcomesofthesereviewshavenotbeenfinalized.Thediscussionandrecommendationsinthissectionwillneedtobeconsideredinthelightofanyconclusionsreachedinthesetwootherreviews.However,theWGisstronglyoftheviewthatimplementationofmostaspectsoftherecommendationsinthisreportshouldbeabletocommencewithouthavingtowaitforotherreviewstobefinalised.

TheWestlakereportarguedthatthecurrentliaisonroleprovidedtheopportunityforALACviewstobeadvancedattheBoardtablemorestronglythanwouldbethecaseifALAChadavotingseatontheBoard.WhiletheWGunderstandsthisrationale,itisequallyattentivetotheargumentpresentedinsomeofthecommunitycommentswhichsuggestedthatthesamelogiccouldbeappliedtothevotingseatsoftheSupportingOrganizations.

Havingconsideredarangeofperspectives,theWGbelievesthatAtLargeshouldbegiventwovotingmembersappointedtotheBoardthroughtheAtLargeprocess.(Themechanismandtimingforthisareoutlined


15

below.)AsthereviewoftheBoardiscurrentlyunderway,itispossiblethatthenumberofseatsontheBoardmaychangeasrecommendedintheindependentreviewreport.Shouldthisoccur,theWGsuggeststhattheAtLargebegiventhesamenumberofseatsastheGNSOandtheccNSO.

Thereareseveralreasonsbehindthisposition.Indevelopingthesesuggestionsforfurtherconsultation,theWGhastriedtoputinplacemeasurestoimprovetherepresentationoftheindividualInternetuserintheICANNprocess.VotingseatsontheBoardareoneimportantaspectofthisimprovedrepresentation,althoughtheWGisveryawarethattheBoardmemberswhoareselectedthroughtheAtLargeprocesswill,likeallBoardmembers,haveresponsibilitytoICANNasawholeandwillnotberepresentativesoftheAtLarge.Inthissense,Boardmembershaveaverydifferentsetofresponsibilitiesfromliaisons.

TheWGisawareoftheapproachproposedintheestablishmentofICANNandintheEvolutionandReformprocesswhereitwasrecognizedthatthevoiceandconcernsoftheuserneededtoberepresentedaroundtheBoardtable.TheNominatingCommitteeappointmentstotheBoardfillthisneedatpresentaspreviousattemptstoelectuserrepresentativesontotheBoardwereheldtobeineffective.AtLargehasnowestablishedtheALAC‐RALO‐ALSstructuresthatweresetoutintheEvolutionandReformprocess.Whiletheseprocessesarenotfullymatureandmanyimprovementsarepossible,theWGbelievesthatthesuccessinestablishingthisframeworkshouldbeacknowledged.ICANNnowhasamechanismthroughwhichindividualInternetuserscanparticipateinanorganizedwayinICANNprocesses.Astheseprocessesarenowinplace,itseemsonlyreasonabletoextendthisrepresentationtofulfiltheintentionoftheoriginaldesignbyallowingAtLargetoelectmemberstotheBoard.TheWGisalsoconsciousthatotherpartsofICANNwerenotrequiredtohaveperfectrepresentationnorperfectprocessesbeforetheyweregivenseatsontheBoard.Indeed,theWGbelievesthatprovidingvotingseatstotheALACwillbeanincentiveforfurtherimprovementsinrepresentativenessandeffectiveness.

TheWGalsoseesthatthereisvalueinhavingAtLargeBoardmembersasthiswillraiseawarenessinAtLargeoftheworkthattheBoardundertakesanditwillallowAtLargetoparticipateinallaspectsoftheBoard’swork,includingincommittees.

TheWGacknowledgesthattherearemanyintheICANNcommunitywhobelievethatAtLargeisnotyetreadyforavotingseatontheBoard.IndeedthereweresomemembersoftheWGwhowereofthisopinion.TherationaleforthispositionisoftenthattheALACanditsprocessesarenotyetmature.SomearguethatlevelsofparticipationinALACarenotatahighenoughorconsistentenoughlevelfortheprovisionofavoting


16

seattobeconsidered.OthersareoftheopinionthatALACandtheRALOsaretoopreoccupiedwithinternalprocessdebatesratherthansubstantialissuesofpolicy.Onbalance,theWGbelievesthatprovidingavotingseatwillbeanincentiveforALACtocontinuetomatureandtofocusonitsprimarytaskofprovidingadviceonpolicyissuesandinputintoICANNoperationalmatters.TheWGalsolooksforwardtoimprovedlevelsofparticipationatalllevelsoftheAtLargeprocess.

TheWGcanalsoseethebenefitsinhavingarepresentativeoftheAtLargeparticipatingfullyandactivelyinalloftheBoardactivitiesofICANN,includingitscommittees.ThiswillprovideAtLargewithabroaderperspectiveofICANNactivityandallowtheperspectiveoftheendusertoflowthroughtoallpartsofICANNactivity.

DesigningamechanismtoplaceAtLargemembersontheBoardisacomplicatedtaskandtheWGrecommendsthatALACworkingwiththeRALOsandtheALSs(andwithstaffsupport)developthatmechanism.Asaninitialproposal,theWGsuggeststhatBoardmembersbeelectedthroughaprocessthatinvolvesALAC,RALOsandALSs,ratherthanjustALACortheRALOs.ThiswillprovidethebestrepresentationofthevoiceandconcernsoftheindividualInternetuser.ThefirstBoardmembercouldtakeaseatattheAGMin2009,atwhichtimetheALACLiaisonpositionwouldberemovedfromtheBoard.ThesecondBoardmembercouldtakeaseatattheAGMin2010.InplacingtheseAtLargerepresentativesontheBoard,considerationwillneedtobegiventothenumberofNominatingCommitteeappointmentsthatneedtobemade.TheWGcanseetheargumentthatthenumberofNominatingCommitteeappointmentsshouldbedecreased,butwouldliketoleaveadecisiononthisuntiltheoutcomesoftheBoardandNominatingCommitteereviewsareclearer.

3.2.2.4. InvolvementofindividualusersinotherpartsofICANN

TheWGbelievesthatALACistheprimaryorganisationalhomeforthevoiceandconcernsoftheindividualInternetuser,althoughindividualusersmaychoosetoparticipateinmanyotherwaysintheICANNprocess.

TheWGacknowledgesthatanindividualmayhaveseveralperspectivesonICANNissuesandthereforemaywishtoparticipateinICANNinseveralways.OneindividualmightwishtocontributetoICANNprocessesasabusinessownerthroughtheBusinessConstituency,throughtheIPconstituencyasalawyerandasanindividualInternetuser,throughtheALAC.Itisimportantnottoconfusethepossibilityforanindividualtocontributeinseveralplacesbecauseofthesedifferentperspectiveswiththeneedfortheindividual’sparticipationasanindividualInternetusertohaveanorganisationalhome.


17

TheWGalsobelievesthatthereisadifferencebetweentheinclusionintheICANNprocessofinputreflectingtheconcernsofindividualusers(forwhichtheprimaryorganisationalhomeisAtLarge),andtheinclusionofinputfromorganisationsthatoperateonbehalfofindividuals.Bonafideconsumerprotectiongroupsareanexampleofsuchanorganisation.IntheopinionoftheWG,ICANNshouldseektoincludeintheICANNprocesssuchorganisationswhosemandateistoprotecttheinterestsofindividuals.SuchgroupsmightchoosetobepartoftheAtLargeasanALS.AnotherlogicalplaceforincludingthemmightbeasaconstituencyorpartofaconstituencywithintheGNSO

ImplementationofsignificantGNSOImprovementsisnowunderway,includingtheconsiderationoftheroleofindividualInternetusersintheGNSO,andthoseeffortsshouldbecoordinatedwiththeALACleadership.ItispossiblethatthecreationofaUserHousewithintheGNSOmaycreatecompetitionformembershipofindividualusers.OneofthestrengthsoftheICANNmulti‐stakeholdermodelisthefreedomitcreatesforindividualstochoosehowtheywouldliketoparticipate.TheWGsupportsthisprincipleandencouragesuserstoparticipateintheICANNprocessinthewaythatbestmeetstheirneeds.

TheWGsuggeststhatthereneedstobeaclearstatementfromtheBoardthatrecognisestheplaceofAtLargeastheprimaryorganisationalhomeforindividualusers,andthatclarifiestherelationshipbetweenALACandtheUserHousecurrentlybeingdevelopedwithintheGNSO.


18

3.2.2.5. Travelpolicy

TheWGsupportsthegeneralprinciplethatICANNshouldreimburseselectedindividualsforreasonabletravelexpensesrelatedtoICANN’smissionaccordingtoitstravelpolicy.ItalsosupportstheideathatparticipantsfundedbyICANNhavearesponsibilitytoactivelyparticipateinallaspectsofthemeeting.However,ICANNresourcesshouldonlybeusedtosupportthosewhoareactiveinICANNpolicyandoperationsissues.TheWGsupportsandacknowledgesthestepsbeingtakenwithinALACtoapproveaccountabilityandtransparencyoftheactivityofmembersoftheALACandRALOsandsuggeststhatthisinformationbeutilizedwhenconsideringtravelsupport.

TheWGacknowledgesthatICANNmeetingsarecomplexeventsthatrequireanenormousamountoforganizationandthatattimessomeparticipantswillhavemoreorlessdesirableaccommodationthanothers.Toensurefairtreatmentofallfundedparticipants,theWGrecommendsthatAtLargerepresentativesbetreatedequallywithotherfundedparticipantswhenaccommodationisbeingorganized.

TheWGalsonotesthatICANNreleasedanewtravelpolicyinAugust2008andsuggeststhatthisbereviewedattheendof2009.ALACshouldbegiventheopportunitytoprovideinputatthatpoint.Aspartofthis2009review,itwouldbeworthwhiletoconsiderallowingALACtohaveagreaterroleindetermininghowALACtravelsupportmoneymightbestbespent.Aslongasappropriategovernanceandcontrolstructuresareputinplace,suchanapproachmightimprovetheeffectivenessofthemoneyspent.

3.2.2.6. Translationandinterpretation

TheWGstronglysupportstheneedforefficient,effectivetranslationandinterpretationprocessesinICANN.AtleastasmuchasanyothergroupintheICANNcommunity,efficient,effectivetranslationiscriticaltothesuccessoftheALACandAtLarge.TheWGalsorecognisesthatatthepresenttime,itisessentialthatmembersofALAChaveproficiencyinwrittenandspokenEnglishtoallowthecommitteetofunctioneffectively.

Thetranslationsystemneedstobefarmorereliablethanitisatpresent.Establishingclearaccountabilities(includingsomeformofServiceLevelAgreement)withstaffandcontractorsiscrucialifhigherstandardsaretobedevelopedandmaintained.TheWGrecommendsthattheBoardaskstafftoreviewtheefficiencyandeffectivenessofcurrenttranslationpracticeswithaviewtoimplementingbettertranslationprocessesandincreasingfundingtoprovideawiderrangeoftranslationservices.ThisisanareawhereICANNshouldstriveforcontinuousimprovement.


19

4. SpecificresponsestotheWestlakerecommendationsInthissectiontheWGaddresseseachoftherecommendationsmadeintheWestlakereport.InsomecasestherecommendationshavebeenmovedoutofnumericalorderwheretheWGbelievesthatitcanrespondmostappropriatelytoanissuebyaddressingseveralrecommendationsatonce.Recommendation1ThatthenumberofNomComappointeestotheALACshouldbeincreasedfromfivetoseven,andthatthisstructureshouldspecificallyberevisitedatthenexttriennialreviewtakingaccountofthethenexistingGeographicRegionalStructureofICANN.TheWGdoesnotbelievethatitwouldbeappropriatetomakechangestotheregionalbalanceofALACalonewithoutaddressingtheissueofregionalbalanceforICANNasawhole.TheWGthereforeencouragestheICANNBoardtomovequicklytoundertakeareviewofICANN’sregionalstructurewithaviewtocreatingastructurethatbetterreflectsthedistributionofInternetusersacrosstheglobe.

TheWGdoesnotseetheneedtochangethenumberofNominatingCommitteeappointmentstotheALACatthispointintime,subjecttothepointsdiscussedinSection3.2.2.3.

Recommendation2ThatallmembersoftheALAC(and,ideally,oftheRALOs)shouldbegivenclearpositiondescriptions.TheWGisverysupportiveoftheideaofcreatingclearroledescriptionsformembersofALACandoftheRALOs.Inparticular,havingtheseavailablewhenindividualsconsidernominatingforALACandRALOpositionswouldprovideclearguidelinesonwhatisexpected.However,ratherthantheseroledescriptionsbeinggiventoALAC,theWGrecommendsthatALACandtheRALOsdevelopthesethemselvesandpresentthemtotheICANNBoardforapproval.TheWGacknowledgesthegoodworkthatisalreadyunderwayinALACtoprovidebettertransparencyandaccountabilityforCommitteemembersandbelievesthatthedevelopmentofroledescriptionsisalogicalcontinuationofthiswork.

Recommendation3ThatthecurrentdistributionoftheRALOsbeleftunaltereduntilatleastthenextALACreview.TheWGsupportsthisrecommendation.SeeSection3.2.1.1foramoredetaileddiscussion.


20

Recommendation4ThatICANNshouldimplementanactivity‐basedcostingsysteminordertoimproveresourcemanagement.TheWGsupportsthisrecommendationasitbelievesthatbetterfinancialinformationwillimproveICANN’sabilitytoeffectivelyevaluateitsperformance.However,theWGalsoacknowledgestheimprovementsthathavealreadytakenplaceinrecentyearsinICANN’sfinancialreportingsystemsandencouragestheBoardtocontinuetosupportthiswork.

Recommendation5ThatICANNshouldprovidefurtherresourcingtosupporttheALAC,totheextentof(upto)onenewemployeeperregion.TheWGagreeswithfurtherresourcingtosupporttheALAC.However,furtherresourcesarenotnecessarilybestspentonmorestaff.SeeSection3.2.1.4foramoredetaileddiscussion.

Recommendation6ThattheALACChairnegotiateanannualsupportagreementwithICANNstaff,settingoutagreedexpectationsandperformanceindicators.TheWGsupportsthisrecommendationandbelievesthatitisanimportantcomponentofimprovingplanning,accountabilityandtransparencywithinAtLarge.SeeSection3.2.1.4foramoredetaileddiscussion.

Recommendation7TheALACpositionontheBoardshouldremainthatofaLiaison,withrightstofullparticipationandinformation,butnovotingrights.TheWGdoesnotsupportthisrecommendation,butinsteadrecommendsvotingseatsappointedfromtheAtLarge.

Recommendation8ThatthetermofappointmentoftheBoardandotherLiaisonsbeextendedtotwoyears,subjecttotheALACretainingthe'rightofrecall'undertheRulesofProcedure,Rule11‐RecallVotes.Giventhecommentsonrecommendation7above,therecommendationconcerningtheBoardLiaisonisnowirrelevant.TheWGsupportsthisrecommendationforotherALACLiaisons.


21

Recommendation9ThatICANNstaffshouldcreateabriefandmulti‐lingualguidetoICANNandtheALAC,aimedatindividualInternetusersandALSs.TheWGsupportsthedevelopmentofmaterialthatallowsindividualInternetuserstobetterunderstandICANNandtheroleoftheindividualInternetuserinICANN.However,theWGrecommendsthatALACdevelopthesematerials(withstaffassistanceasnecessary)sothattheymosteffectivelyservetheneedsofindividualInternetusersacrosstheglobe.TheWGalsoacknowledgesthatasubstantialamountofmaterialhasalreadybeenprepared.

Recommendation10ThattheALACshoulddevelop:

• AsimpleannualStatementofIntentwhichspecifiesthecurrentissuesandpriorities,objectivesandactivitiesforthenext12months,anddefinesmeasuresofsuccessforeachoftheactivitiesandobjectives.ThisdocumentshouldbestronglyalignedtoICANN’sStrategicandOperationalPlansandbepublishedontheALACwebsite;

• BeforethenextICANNannualplanningcycle,theALACshoulddevelopaStrategicPlanofitsown(complementingthebroaderICANNStrategicPlan).

• FollowingthedevelopmentofthisStrategicPlan,theALACshouldthengenerateanannualOperatingPlanwhichcitestheactivitiesandresourcesrequiredtosupporttheStrategicPlanduringthatyear(alsocomplementingthecorrespondingbroaderICANNStrategicandOperatingPlansandfittingthesameplanningcycle).

TheWGsupportsthisrecommendation.ItisimportantthatallpartsoftheICANNstructurecontributetotheplanningprocess.TheWGreinforcestheneedfortheALACplanningefforttobecloselytiedtotheICANNplanningcycle.Staffsupportshouldbeutilizedasneededtoassistwiththeseplanningefforts.SeeSection3.2.1.3foramoredetaileddiscussion.

Recommendation11ThatthetermofappointmentoftheALACChairshouldbeextendedtotwoyears.TheWGsupportsthisrecommendation,subjecttothe“rightofrecall”accordingtotheALACRulesofProcedure.

Recommendation12ThattheALACshouldexplorewaystodifferentiatebetweenorganizationsthatgenuinelyrepresentindividualInternetusers,andarethereforeALScandidates,asopposedtothosewhichmaybeabetterfitwiththeNCUC..ImplementationofsignificantGNSOImprovementsisnowunderway,includingtheconsiderationoftheroleofindividualInternetusersintheGNSO,andthoseeffortsshouldbecoordinatedwiththeALACleadership.


22

Recommendation13ThattheALACshouldpublishonitswebsitetrendsintheaveragetimetakenfromreceiptofanALSapplicationtodecision.TheWGsupportsthedevelopmentofperformancemeasuresforALACaspartofaregularplanningprocessasdiscussedinRecommendation10.PromptdecisionsonALSapplicationsareimportantformaintainingtheinterestofALS’sintheICANNissuesandtheirfaithintheICANNprocess.TheWGstronglyrecommendsthatALACincludeameasuresuchasthiswhenitdevelopsitsperformancemeasures.TheWGalsosupportsthepublicationofascorecardofallmeasuresontheALACwebsite,withstaffsupportingasnecessary.However,givenimprovementsinthisareainrecenttime,thisisnotahighpriority.

Recommendations14and15ThatregularALScompliancereviewsbeconductedandthenon‐complianceprovisionsbeappliedasappropriate.ThatICANNshoulddevelopclearsanctionsfornon‐compliance.Thesemightinclude:ineligibilityforICANNtravelfunding;lossofvotingrights;orbeingsuspendeduntilthematterisremedied.TheWGsupportsmeasurestofurtherimproveaccountabilityandtransparencywiththeAtLarge,andacknowledgesthegoodworkthatALAChasalreadyundertakeninthisarea.Compliancereviewshavemerit,butinthefirstinstance,effortshouldbeputintoeducatingALSsaboutICANNissuesandencouragingandsupportingthemtocontributetopolicydebates.

Recommendation16ThatanyoutstandingissuesrelatingtoOmbudsmanreports05‐1090and06‐317,shouldbedealtwithassoonaspossiblebytheICANNBoardortheALAC(asappropriate).TheWGbelievesthatthisrecommendationisamatterfortheICANNBoardtodealwith.


23

Recommendation17ThattheALACshoulddevelopaclearlydefinedprocessfortheengagementoftheAt‐Largecommunityindevelopingpolicypositions.TheWGstronglysupportsthisrecommendation.TheeffectiveprovisionofadvicefromanindividualInternetuserperspectiveintoICANNpolicydevelopmentprocessesisanessentialfunctionofALAC.SeeSection3.2.2.1foradetaileddiscussion.

Recommendations18,21,23,24ThattheALACshouldusemulti‐lingualwikisratherthanthecurrentemailliststoallowtheAt‐Largecommunitytomoreeasilyobserveandparticipateinthedevelopmentofpolicypositions.Thatprivateemaillistsshouldbeusedonlyforappropriatenon‐publicdiscussion.ThatICANNstaffshouldmanageandmaintaincontentofthevariousALACwikis.ThattheALACshouldreplaceemaillistswithwikisforpolicydiscussionsinparticularandcontinuetheevaluationofWeb‐basedtoolstofacilitatediscussionandcollaborativeworking.TheWGsupportstheuseofcollaborativetoolsinALAC’swork.ItalsosupportstheideathatALACencouragetransparencyinitspolicydiscussions.However,theWGbelievesthatALACandotherAtLargemembersshouldbelefttomakethedecisionsaboutwhichtoolsaremostsuitedtotheneedsofparticipantsatvarioustimes.

Recommendation19ThatICANNshouldincreasethepubliccommentperiodto45calendardaysinordertoallowagreatertimeperiodforAt‐Largecommunityconsultationinallregions.TheWGrecommendsthatthestandardpubliccommentperiodbeleftat30daysexceptinspecialcircumstances,inwhichcaseALACmayrequestanextensionto45days.SeeSection3.2.2.2foradetaileddiscussion.

Recommendation20ThattheICANNBoardshouldamendtheTravelPolicytopayforaccommodationexpenses(includingbreakfastandinternetaccessfees)andwherepracticableaccommodateAt‐largemembersatorverynearthemainconferencevenue.Theperdiemamount(tocoverotherappropriatedailyexpenses)shouldalsobeavailableasacashadvanceforthosethatrequireit.TheWGsupportsthegeneralprinciplethatICANNshouldreimburseselectedindividualsforreasonabletravelexpensesrelatedtoICANN’smissionaccordingtoitstravelpolicy.ItalsosupportstheideathatparticipantsfundedbyICANNhavearesponsibilitytoactivelyparticipateinallaspectsofthemeeting.However,ICANNresourcesshouldonlybeusedtosupportthosewhoareactiveinICANNpolicyandoperationsissues.TheWGalsonotesthatICANNreleasedanewtravelpolicyinAugust2008andsuggeststhatthisbereviewedattheendof2009.ALACshouldbe


24

giventheopportunitytoprovideinputatthatpoint.Aspartofthis2009review,itwouldbeworthwhiletoconsiderallowingALACtohaveagreaterroleindetermininghowtravelsupportmoneymightbestbespent.Aslongasappropriategovernanceandcontrolstructurescouldbeputinplace,suchanapproachmightimprovetheeffectivenessofthemoneyspent.

Recommendation22ThatICANNshouldcontinuetoworkonitslanguagepolicy,includingtranslationandotherservices.TheWGstronglysupportsthisrecommendation.Efficient,effectivetranslationiscriticaltothesuccessoftheALAC.TheWGrecommendsthattheBoardaskstafftoreviewtheefficiencyandeffectivenessofcurrenttranslationpracticeswithaviewtoimplementingbettertranslationprocessesandincreasingfundingtoprovideawiderrangeoftranslationservices.Thetranslationsystemneedstobefarmorereliablethanitisatpresent.Establishingclearaccountabilities(includingsomeformofServiceLevelAgreement)withstaffandcontractorsiscrucialifhigherstandardsaretobedevelopedandmaintained.


25

Appendix1:BGCALACReviewWorkingGroupCharter(approvedbytheBoardon30April2008)Thepurposeoftheworkinggroupisto:1.Monitor(alongwithStaff)theindependentevaluator'sprogressthroughperiodicprogressupdatesfromtheevaluator,andprovideanindependentfocalpointforstewardshipandguidanceonissuesrelatingtothereview;(Note:StaffwillprovidereviewupdatestotheBGC,Board,andpublic,asneeded;StaffalsowillhelpensuretheevaluatorhasaccesstoinformationrelatingtopastALACandAt‐Largeactivities;andStaffwillensurethattheevaluatorfulfillshiscontractualobligations);2.Helpensurethattheevaluator'sfinalreport(independentreview)containsthedataandinformationtheWGandtheBGCneedstocarry‐outtheirwork;(Note:StaffwillassistinidentifyingWGandBGCneedsandwillliaisewiththeevaluatortohelpensuretheseneedsaremet;thiswillincludeStaffandWGreviewofadraftfinalreport);3.Considerthe(independentevaluator’s)finalreport,Boardinput,andcommentsfromstakeholdersandthepublic,andadvisetheBGCwhether,ingeneral,theALAChasacontinuingpurposeintheICANNstructure;and4.Ifso,consultbroadlyandadvisetheBGCwhetheranychangeinstructureoroperationsisdesirabletoimproveitseffectiveness‐‐andrecommendtotheBGCacomprehensiveproposaltoimprovetheinvolvementoftheindividualInternetusercommunityinICANN.Theworkinggroupwill:•(AlongwithStaff)ReceiveperiodicprogressreportsontheALACreviewtohelpensurethattheevaluator'sworkisprogressingappropriately,andthattheevaluator'sfinalreport(independentreview)containsthedataandinformationtheWGandtheBGCneedstocarry‐outitswork,aswellasprovidestheindependentevaluationrequired;•Develop(withStaffassistance)andsubmittotheBGCaprocessandscheduletocreateandpubliclyconsiderproposalsforchange–ensuringthatthefinalreport,andinputfromtheBoard,theAt‐Largecommunity,ICANNstakeholdersandthepublicistakenintoconsideration;•Develop(withStaffassistance)draftandfinalcomprehensiveproposalsforALACimprovementforBGCconsiderationandpubliccomment;acomprehensiveproposalshouldincludespecificrecommendationsaddressingallimprovementsandchangesdeemednecessaryfortheeffectivenessoftheALACandrelatedAt‐Largestructures;and•Postdraftandfinalproposals(afterBGCconsideration)forpubliccommenttohelpensuretransparencyandparticipation,andprovideamplepublicopportunityforinput,discussion,andadviceonproposedchangestotheALACandAt‐LargecommunityinvolvementinICANN.


26

Staffwillprovidesupportfortheworkinggroup.TheworkinggroupwillnotifytheBGCifadditionalinformationneedstobesolicitedtocompleteacomprehensiveproposal.Uponreceivingtheworkinggroup'srecommendations,theBGCwillconsiderthemandrecommendBoardactionasdeemedappropriate.


27

Appendix2:ALACReviewWG‐Briefsummaryofconsultationandfeedback

1.TheWGconductedasessionattheParismeetingwhereWestlakepresentedtheirrecommendationsandmembersofthecommunitywereabletoaskquestionsofclarificationonthekeyissues.Thetranscriptofthesessioncanbefoundathttps://par.icann.org/files/paris/Paris‐ALACReviewWorkshop‐23JUN08.txt

Maintopicsofdiscussionwere:• Regionalrepresentationissues,includingNomCommappointedversus

electedmembers• WhyisvotingseatsontheBoardoutofscope?• Advantagesanddisadvantagesofincreasedstaffing

2.TheWGconductedasecondconsultationsessionattheParismeetingonissuesraisedbytheWestlakereport.Thetranscriptofthissessioncanbefoundathttps://par.icann.org/files/paris/Paris‐ICANNBCGAt‐LargeReviewWorkingGroup‐25JUN08.txt

Maintopicsofconversationwere:• Needformoretimebeforeundertakingareview• AdvantagesanddisadvantagesofvotingseatontheBoardanddifficultiesin

buildingavalidvotingprocess• Difficultiesingettingrealuserparticipation• Needforbudgetattheregionallevel• Changethroughaprocessofcontinuousimprovement• NeedforALACadvicetobetakenseriously• Issuesratherthangeographymaybethebestwaytoorganise• Regionalapproachvaluableasitallowsforculturaldifference• NeedtoacknowledgelessonsfromALAChistory

3.TheWGmetwithALACduringtheParismeeting.Thediscussioncoveredgeneralcommentsaboutthereportandthedesireofbothsidestocooperateinthenextstageofthereviewprocess.

4.AnonlinepubliccommentforumwasopenedforcommentsontheissuesraisedintheWestlakereport.Theforum(nowclosed)canbefoundinthearchiveathttp://forum.icann.org/lists/alac‐final‐2008/

CommentswerereceivedfromISOC‐AU,DannyYounger,SylviaCaras,ISPCP,AlanLevin,OlivierMJCrepin‐Lebland,AlanGreenberg,ALAC.Topicscoveredintheforumincluded:

• OngoingpurposeofALAC


28

o Somesupportfortheongoingpurposeo SuggestionthatALACneedsmoretimeo OnesuggestionthatALAChasnocontinuingpurposeanddoesnot

representtheviewsofusers• Regionalissues

o Representationshouldbeproportionaltonumberofuserso Suggestionthattwoadditionalnon‐votingAsiaPacificrepresentatives

couldbeappointed• AtLargestructure

o Supportforcurrentstructureo RALOsneedmoretime(andoneclearsuggestionthattheyshouldbe

shutdownifnotworking)o Needtoclarifythewaysthatenduserscanparticipateo NeedoutreachtogrowALSnumbers

• Resourcingo Supportforextraresourcingbasedonclearplano Staffnotalwaystheanswer;resourcescouldbedeployedinother

wayso Centralisedstaffneededforcoordinationofactivityo ALACshouldhavecontroloverstaffo Regionalbudgetsareneeded

• RelationshipwithotherICANNentitieso Needtoclarifyroleso Perceivedoverlapsarenotanissueo AtLargevoiceisrelevantbeyondGNSOissues

• Votingseato Supportforavotingseatforaccountabilitytoenduserso Supportformaintainingliaison

• Planningo SupportforbetterALACplanning,linkedtoICANNplanningo Supportforplanning,butshouldmaintainindependenceo Planningnecessaryforimprovemento Shouldbe“light”sothatprocessdoesnotbecomethefocus

• Toolso Supportforuseofbettertoolso Needtorememberaccessibilityissues

• Consultationperiodso 45daysistoolong

• Translationo Supportforcontinuingandbettertranslation,butneedtobemindful

ofcosts• Westlakereport

o Someopinionsleftouto Nothistorical

5.MembersoftheWGattendedtheAfricaRALOmeetingon3September2008.


29

Themaintopicscoveredwere:• SupportforincreasedNomCommappointmentstoALAC;needtodevelopa

mechanismfordeterminingthenumber(sizeofregion,numberofALSs,….)• SupportforALACvotingrightsontheBoard

Minutesofthismeetingcanbefoundat:https://st.icann.org/afralo/index.cgi?meeting_summary_03_september_2008

6.MembersoftheWGattendedtheGNSOteleconferenceon4September.Maintopicsofconversationwere:

TheICANNbylawsareveryexplicitinthatnooneisprohibitedfrombeingpartofaGNSOconstituencybecausetheybelongtoanotherconstituency. AllconstituenciesshouldhavetheopportunitytoengageinanAdvisorygroupandasICANNgrows,thereismoreofthisoverlapwiththesameindividualsbeingindifferentgroups,thusthenecessitytotakeacloserlookatthestructures. Therecommendationispertinentbutshouldbeviewedinadifferentlightgiventheacceptanceofthebicameralproposal,whichispredicatedontheconceptofaNonCommercialgroupthatisgoingtobearadicallyreformedwiththeNCUCasacentralstartingpointandsomepartoftheAtLargeasyetunspecified. However,theALACmadeitquiteclearthatit,asabody,wasnotlookingforanyindirectparticipationintheGNSObutwantedtheopportunityforindividualuserstoparticipateintheGNSOintheirowncapacity.

Arecordingofthismeetingcanbefoundathttp://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso‐council‐20080904.mp37.MembersoftheWGattendedtheNARALOmeetingon8September2008.Themaintopicsofconversationwere:

• PurposeofALACo asaguardianofinterestsofInternetuserso ALAChasnocontinuingpurpose

• OrganizationsmaychoosetojoineitherNCUCorALACorboth• ALACneedsastrongervoiceasadvocateoftheInternetcommunity

Minutesofthemeetingcanbefoundat:https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?summary_minutes_08_september_2008

8.MembersoftheWGattendedtheALACmeetingon9September2008.Themaintopicsofconversationwere:

• MembershipofmorethanoneICANNconstituency:o Someinagreement,encouragingflexibilityo Otherssuggestingthatgroupsshouldbe“Business”and“others”

• ALACshouldbeabletomanageitsownbudget• ConcernthatnotallopinionswerereflectedintheWestlakereport• Difficultyinengagingpeopleinthecurrentstructureastheycouldnotsee

whatdifferencetheirparticipationwouldmake• Noticethatresponseswouldbesenttotheonlinecommentforum

Minutesofthemeetingcanbefoundat:


30

https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?09_september_2008_summary_minutes

9.AdvancedistributionofadraftoftheALACWGreporttotheChairofALAC.Commentswerereceivedinateleconference.

10.AdvancedistributionofadraftoftheALACWGreporttotheChairandDeputyChairoftheGNSO.CommentsfromtheGNSOChairareincludedhere:

On8Oct2008,at07:14,TriciaDrakeswrote:

>TheALACReviewWorkingGroupwantedtoletyouhavethiscourtesy“advancecopy”forinformation.

>

Thankyouverymuchforthisadvancecopy.WhiletherearethingsIquibblewith(whenaren'tthere?)Ifindmyselfinagreementwithmostoftherecommendations.Thecommentsbelowreflectafewofthosequibbles.Andyes,Iknowyoudidnotaskforcomments,sopleaseforgivethisrudereactiontoyourcourtesy.ArecommendationsthatgivesmeslightpauseisthecallforanincreaseinthesizeandpowerofICANN'spolicystaff.Ihaveaperpetualconcernthatthelargerthisstaffgets,themorelikelyitistohaveitsownpolicydriveasopposedtobeingfocusedonassistingthevolunteersintheirpolicyrelatedactivities.Iunderstandtheneedformoreassistancealltoowell,butthelargerthestaffgets,themorethevolunteersneedtooverseewhatthestaffdoes‐thiscanbecomealotofwork.Findingtherightbalancebetweenvolunteersactuallyworkingandthestaffdoingtheworkiscrucial.Ithinkrecommendation6fromWestlakewasimportantinthatitcreatessomeaccountabilityoftheICANNpolicystafftotheChairofALAC‐Iwouldhopethisresponsibilityalsoincludesmandatoryinputintostaff,includingseniorstaff,reviews.IworrythatthethingsIthinkareimportantmaybeinconflictwithsomeoftheWG'srecommendationsinrelationtothisrecommendation.IverymuchsupportthecreationoftwoBoardseatselectedbytheALS's.ThiswillhelpredresssomeoftheovercorrectionsthatoccurredinthemovefromICANNrev1torev2.Re5.11,Ipersonallybelievethisiseasy,ALACisaboutusersandtheGNSO/NUCshouldbeaboutregistrants‐butIbelieveIamintheminoritywiththisviewpointintheGNSO.Ibelievethisisthecruxofthe


31

differentiation,notnecessarilytherequirementsfororganizationalmembershipintheNCUC.Re:therequirementforacknowledgmentofALACadvice,Ibelievethisiscritical.IwouldaddthattheBoardshouldalsoberequiredtoprovidethesamesortofacknowledgementitisrequiredtoprovidetotheGAC.OfcourseiftheyhavetwoBoardseatsthismaybelessessential‐thoughgiventherequirementofBoardmemberstobeforthegoodofall,theymightnotbeabletoadequatelyrepresenttheALACatalltimes.Thanksagaina.

11.ConsultationattheCairomeeting,includingsessionswiththeGNSOCouncilandtheALACinadditiontothepublicsessionontheWGMid‐pointReport.Themainpointsmadewere:

• SupportforvotingseatonBoard(althoughtheroleofDirectorsisnotwellunderstood)

o Boardseat hassymbolicvalue willallowactiveinvolvementofALACinBoardandon

Committees isimportantforengagingconsumersintheICANNprocess

o littleinputintothemechanismforselectingDirectors• SupportforuserinvolvementintheNCSHouseoftheGNSO;mechanism

unclear;draftingaround“solechannel”needstobeimproved• Supportforplanning;recognitionthatanyfurtherresourcesmustbetiedto

plans• Betterusecanbemadeofvolunteersandregional/subregionalstructuresto

supportICANN’swork• Recognitionthatmoreworkneedstobedonetobetterrepresentusers;

engagementandeducationarekey• Capacitybuildingisveryimportant(espinAfricaandLatinAmerica)

12.AnonlinecommentforumwasopenedwhentheMid‐pointReportwaspublishedandclosedon12December.Asummaryofthecommentscanbefoundathttp://forum.icann.org/lists/alac‐mid‐consult/ThiscommentforumincludesadraftofthecommentsfromALAC.AfinalversionoftheircommentswasapprovedinJanuary2009.

13.ApublicsessionwasheldattheMexicomeeting.Theaudiofilesofthatsessioncanbefoundathttp://mex.icann.org/node/2661


32

14.ApubliccommentforumwasopenedontheICANNwebsiteon11Februaryandclosedon30April.Theforumcanbefoundathttp://www.icann.org/en/public‐comment/#alac‐reviewandcontainsasummaryofcomments.


33

Appendix3:ConcurrencefromKarlAuerbach,memberoftheALACReviewWGIconcurwiththereportofourworkinggroup.Yet,whileIagreewithnearlyallofourrecommendations,Iamnotsatisfied.Iwouldlikemore.ButknowingthatprogressisachievedbysmallstepsmoreoftenthanbygreatleapsIseeourreportasasteptowardsadestinationandnotthedestinationitself.

Ourreportisacomplexworkofmanyhands;theWestlakeGroup,thosewhocommented,thestaffwhohelpedputtogetherthetext,andourselves,theworkinggroupmembers.Iwasimpressedbytheremarkabledegreeofopendialog,openmindedconsiderationofideas,andthetotalabsenceofanyself‐interestedagendas.

WhatIwriteheremayappeartostretchbeyondthecharterofourworkinggroup.Perhaps.Butitisnecessary.ICANN'sat‐largeAdvisoryCommitteeisafacetofthecentralissueofICANN:theoperationoftheinternet'sdomainnameandIPaddresssystemssothattheyservethepublicinterest.Artificialconstraintsonourinquirywouldleadtoartificialresults.Ichosetoerr,ifIerr,onthesideofamoresynoptictreatment.

IwatchedICANNbeforeandasitwascreated;Ihavenotforgottensomeofthepromises1thatweremade.Thesepromisesshouldberememberedandhonored.

ThecurrentALACwasastepbackwardsfromthesystemthatitreplaced.Thatpriorsystemself‐organizedandself‐fundeditselfintoavibrantsystemofdebateandinformationexchange.ICANNmerelyrantheelectionmachinery.InthatsystemthepublicitselfnominatedandelectedpeopleontotheICANNBoardofDirectors,afarcryfromthethicklyinsulatingcommitteeuponcommitteeuponcommitteeintricacyofthepresentALAC.Today'sALAC,evenaftersixyearsoffundingandintensivemanagementbyICANN,hasnotapproachedthevibrancyorscopeofitspredecessor.

ItismyviewthatICANNoughttoscraptheALACinitsentiretyandreturntothestatusquoante.

ButIdonotfeelthatthereis,asyet,adequatesupportwithinICANNforsuchamove.

SoIamforcedtoacceptincrementalimprovementstotheALAC.

MuchasIagreewiththeincrementalimprovementsthatourworkinggroupisrecommending,theresultisnotevenashadowofitspredecessor.

Ratherthansuggestingmoreminoradjustments,Iwillfocushereononeparticularprinciple,thatofaccountabilityofICANNtothepublic.

1For example of one such promise see the statement of Esther Dyson, Chairman of ICANN, made the

before the US House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 22, 1999.


34

Tomymindallotherissuesaresubordinatetothisquestionofpublicaccountability.

SomeoneorsomethingmusthavethepowertorequireICANNtomeetitsobligationtoservethepublicbenefit.

Whoorwhatoughttohavethatpower?Myanswerissimple:ICANNshouldbeanswerabletothesamepublicforwhosebenefitICANNwascreated.

ICANNisalreadyaccountabletothepeopleoftheStateofCaliforniathroughitspubliclyelectedAttorneyGeneral.Mythesisisthatitisbettertovestthataccountabilityintothecommunityofinternetusersthanintoagovernmentofficial.

ICANN'sstructureissocomplicatedthatitisnearlyimpossibleforanygroup,muchlessthepublic,toholdICANNaccountable.

Moreover,ICANN'sBoardofDirectorshasexercisedonlyweakauthorityovertheactivitiesoftheirchosenexecutivesandtheirstaff.ThishascreatedahighlyimbalancedsituationinwhichICANNanditsdecisionsarelargelydrivenbyafreewheelingICANNstaff.TheBoardhastheauthoritytoremedythisproblembutitshowsnosignsofdoingso.AslongastheBoardallowsthisimbalancetocontinue,itmatterslittlewhethertheBoardofDirectorsortheALACbecomemorestronglyrepresentativeofthepublic:AslongasICANN'sBoardallowsICANNstaffto“runtheshow”,effectiveoversightofICANN,andthusaccountabilityofICANN,willnotexist.

Ourworkinggroupwasconstrained;wecouldnotdealwiththelargerissueofICANNstructure.AndwewerefacedwithanambiguitywhetherourcharterallowedustogobeyondtheWestlakereport.AsaconsequencethebestwecandoistotrytocuresomemildsymptomsoftheALAC'sweaknesses.

Therearetwocausesofthatweakness:

TheALACisexcessivelycomplex.

Theword“byzantine”wasnotinventedtodescribetheALAC,butitdoesapply.TheALACissimplytoocomplicatedandinsertstoomanylayersbetweeninternetusersandthepolicymakingenginesofICANN.Ataminimumthe“RALO”layeroftheALACserveslittlepurposeandshouldbeeliminated.

TheALACisunlikelytobeaneffectivesourceofaccountabilityoradviceaslongasitretainsitslabyrinthineform.AndinternetuserswillfeelthatthelayersoftheALACoperatetoinsulateandisolateICANNfromtheiropinions.

TheALAChastoolittleauthority.

Iampleasedthatourworkinggrouppartiallyremediesthislackofauthoritybyrecommendingtwoat‐largefilledvotingseatsonICANN'sBoardofDirectors.Iwishthatnumberweresignificantlylargerandthatthenumberofotherseatswerereduced.

Itisimportantthatthepublic'schoiceofDirectorsnotbefilteredanddilutedthroughthenominatingcommittee.


35

TheabilitytofillvotingseatsonICANN'sboardwillgivetheALACsomemuchneededactualcredibility.Butthatcredibilitywillbepointlessunlessitcanbewellexercised–whichrequiresthattheALACpushmoreresourcesouttoitsedges.

OurreportrecommendsthatmoreresourcesbemadeavailableattheedgesoftheALAC.Istronglyagree.Inaddition,Ialsobelievequitestronglythattheedgesshouldbeasautonomousandindependentaspossible,eventothedegreeofallowingtheedgestoengageindecisionstohire,ordischarge,people.(ThelegalimplicationsofthistoICANNcouldbesignificant.)

Suchautonomyandindependencecouldleadtosomewasteandpossiblyeventomisuse.Ibelievethatsuchrisksareworthwhile.ICANNcanminimizetheserisksbyimposinggoodandtimelycosttrackingandaccountingonanyresourcesthatICANNmakesavailable.

Inaddition,theALACisnotreallyindependent.TheALACdependsonICANNformoneyandresources.TheALACresemblesa“companyunion”,aformthathasacheckeredreputationandhasevenbeenoutlawedinsomelocales.

NordoesithelpthattheALAC'sjobiswidelyperceivedinanarrowway,thattheALAC'sroleistodolittlemorethanbeasourceofadvicethatotherswithinICANNmightchosetoconsider,ornot.

TheseproblemsmaketheALACineffective.Andthat,inturn,diminishestheperceivedvalueofALACparticipationbypeoplewhomightconsiderjoining.

TheALACisfurtherweakenedbyitscontext.TheALACisstructuredasapolitedebatingsociety.Yetitmostoperateinthemiddleofamaelstrom.

ICANNisapoliticalbattlefieldonwhicheconomicandsocialforcesengageinwaysthatarenotnecessarilypretty.ThepositionandstructureofthecurrentALACdoomittobelittlemorethanadefenselesswaiflostonthisbattlefield.

Canthatwaifevergrow‐uptobeatitaninthatbattle?ICANN'ssystemofpermanentstructuralpreferencesforselected“stakeholders”makesthatveryunlikely.

WehavebeenaskedtooverlooktheALAC'sflawsonthegroundsthatitisnewandneedstime.Idonotagree.

TheALACwascreatedsixyearsago.TheALAChashadsixyearsandhundredsofthousandsofdollars,ifnotmore,ofdirectICANNfundingandstaffsupport.WhileonecansaythatthattheALAChasachievedsomeformalstructureandasmallcadreofactiveadherents,itcannotbesaidthattheALAChasobtainedawidefollowing,particularlywhencomparedtothehundredsofthousandswhotriedtoparticipateinICANN'syear2000elections.

TheALACisnotanewsystemandthereisnoreasontoexcuseitsfaultsonthegroundsthattheALACisnewandneedsmoretime.

Andfinally,Iamdisappointedthatevenafterayearsincewefirstbeganasking,ICANNhasnotbeenabletoproducecurrentorhistoricaldataonthecostoftheALAC.


36

Itismybeliefthatourreportwouldhavebeendifferent,indetailandingross,hadhistoricalandpresentcostdatafortheALACbeenavailable.

ThislackoffinancialdataisparticularlyironicgiventhatthesystemofelectionsthatprecededtheALACwasdismantledinlargepartbecauseitwasconsideredtooexpensive.

EvenintheabsenceoffinancialdataitisveryclearthattheALACsystem,includingtheICANNstaffthatmanagesit,isveryexpensive.Itisquiteapparent,simplybylookingatthenumberofstaffmembersinvolvedandthefewvisiblefundingnumbers,thattheALACismuchmoreexpensivethentheelectivesystemthatitreplaced.

ICANNIsARegulatoryBody;ItsDebatesAndDecisionsArePolitical,NotTechnical

ThereseemtobemanywithinICANNwhofeelthatICANNisabovethefrayofpolitics,thatICANNissomekindofhighercreationinwhichideasareweighedonunbiasedscalesanddiscussedbypurelydisinterestedminds.

Thatisabeautifulidea.Butitisisnotconsistentwithactualpractice.

TherealICANNisabodyofinternetgovernance.TherealICANNdoesnotdotechnicalcoordination.TherealICANNengagesineconomicandsocialengineering.

TherealICANNisafullfledgedregulatorybody.

TheimpactofICANN'sregulationsaresignificant.ICANN'spolicieshaveanimpactuponthecommunityofinternetusersthatismeasuredinmultiplesofbillionsofUSdollars($1,000,000,000US)eachandeveryyear.ICANN'sdecisionsarelifeordeathsentencestocompletelylawfulinnovationsontheinternet.

WeshouldnotexpectthedebatesaboutICANNpolicytobeprettysetpiecesorVictorianteaparties.Weshouldrecognizetheinterestgroupswillconfrontoneanotherwithafullarmoryofpoliticalweaponry.

ICANNcan,atbest,createaplayingfieldandrulesofengagement;ICANNcannotstopthebattle.

TheALACisatadisadvantage.WiththeALACbeinglargelyanICANNdependency,structured,funded,staffed,andoperatedbyICANN,theALACisaweakpawnwhileICANN'sstakeholderconstituenciesarerooks,bishops,andknights.

ICANN'slongtermgoalshouldbetoengenderanindependentat‐largeorALACthatisabletoactonitsownbehalf,manage(andfund)itsownaffairs,andhaveadirectandsignificantroleintheactualprocessthroughwhichICANNmakesdecisions.

AccountabilitytothePublic

Toavoidmisconception,IamnotproposinganythinglikeanALACorat‐largeplebisciteoneveryICANNmatter.RatherIamsuggestingthataccountabilitytothepublicrequiresthatthepublic,viaitsarm,theALAC,beabletohaveareasonableability,overaperiodoftime,toinduceICANNtomorecloselytrackthepublic


37

interest.Thiscanberealizedinconcretetermsbyseveraltechniques,themostdirectbeingamajorityofvotingseatsontheBoardofDirectors.Butthereareothermeans.ForexampleperhapsobjectionsbytheALAConamatterwouldtriggersupermajorityvotingrequirementsbeforetheBoardcouldadoptthatmatter.

ItisreasonablethattherebedampersandconstraintsonthispowertoholdICANNanswerable,butthosedampersandconstraintsshouldbeimpedimentsthatbringcautionandinhibitrashactions,theyshouldnotbeinsurmountablebarriersthatmoottherealityofaccountability.

ThereisatheorythatICANN'sBoardofDirectorsrepresentsthepublicandformsthebulwarkofaccountability.ClearlytheBoardhastheauthoritytotakethehelmandchangeICANN'scourseshouldICANN'scourseveerfromthepublicinterest.However,ICANN'sBoardmembersarechosenbymeansthataretooremotefromthepublic.SowhileitisthecasethatICANN'sBoardmembersarepeopleofgreatintegrityandhavegreatconcernforthepublic'sinterests,thosepeoplearenotchosenbythepublic,theydonotserveatthepleasureofthepublic.

(ThisinsulationfromthepublicisalsoaproblemfortheALAC,whichiswhyIstronglybelievethatthatALACcannotitselfbeconsideredaneffectivemeansofpublicaccountabilityuntilitsstructureissignificantlystreamlinedandsomeofitslayersremoved.)

ThePublic'sRoleIsNotPrimarilyToGiveAdvice

TobeaneffectivevoiceforinternetuserstheALACmusthaveaseatatthetablewheredecisionsaremade.Anadvisoryroleisnotsufficient.

ManyconsidertheproperpublicroleinICANNtobelargelypassive.ThatviewholdsthatICANNwillbewiseandjust,and,ifprovidedwithenoughpubliccomments,ICANNwillcreatethebestofallpossibleanswers.

Therearetwoproblemswiththis:

First,muchaswemaywishotherwise,ICANNisnotacollegeofwiseanddisinterestedphilosopherkings.ExperiencewithICANNhasshownthatinpracticeICANNistypical;itemitsresultsthatmirrortheforcesthatindustrialandtechnicalinterestsbringtobearandthepublicinterestisoftenoverlooked.

Second,whetheradviceiswellformedoughtnottobeapreconditiononthepersongivingofthatadvicebutratherameasureofcredibilitythatisappliedbytheonehearingthatadvice.Inapoliticalforum,suchasICANN,themeasureofqualityofadviceisverysubjectiveandoftendependsonwhichsideofanissuethespeakerandlistenerhappentobeon.

TheALACandthepublichaveaself‐interestinmakingtheiradviceascogentandpersuasiveaspossible;weoughtmerelytosupporttheALACinthateffortbutnotexpendtoomuchenergytryingtocoercetheALACinthatdirection.

AnErrorInTheWestlakeReport

OurreportcorrectsaflawintheWestlakereport.Thatreportcontaineda


38

recommendationthattheALACbepermittedtodesignatetwopeoplewhocouldobserveandspeaktotheboardbutwhowouldnothavetherights,particularlyvotingrights,anddutiesoffullboardmembers.ThatrecommendationwasbasedonapresumptionthatpresenceoffullboardmembershipwoulddenytheALAC'schoicesfreedomtoconsidertheinterestsofthepublic.

InthistheWestlakereportmisapprehendedthefiduciaryobligationsofICANN'sdirectors.Inactuality,becauseICANNisa“publicbenefit”corporation,ICANN'sdirectors,allofthemnomatterhowtheyobtainedtheirseats,arerequiredbylawtoconsidertheimpactoftheirdecisions,whetherfororagainstamatter(oreventoabstain),onthepublicinterest.Inotherwords,thepublicinterestisamaterialelementtobeconsideredwhendecidingwhetheramatterisinICANN'sinterest.

Thus,whetherornotanALACdirectorhasavote,heorshemay,indeedheorshemust,takethepublicinterestintoaccountwhenevaluatingwhatpositiontotakeonamatterbeforetheboard.

Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group on ALAC ... · ICANN ALAC Review WG Final report 9...

Documents

Transcript of Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group on ALAC ... · ICANN ALAC Review WG Final report 9...