WG2 Draft Statement
NEW VERSION (4-1)
At-Large Summit – Mexico
The Future Structure & Governance of ICANN – English
Working Group 2 will prepare a statement encapsulating the views of the At-Large community on “the future structure and governance of ICANN”. This is a major current initiative of ICANN, referred to as the “Improving Institutional Confidence” process.
More than two years ago, the President’s Strategy Committee (PSC) commenced a series of consultations on how to strengthen and complete the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. In addition, the recent midterm review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the United States Department of Commerce and ICANN produced useful comments about ICANN’s performance and future. More information about this process may be found athttp://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence-revised.htm
Document prepared by Working Group 2*(1]***
Comments responding to documents prepared by the PSC, and specifically concerning “Improving Institutional Confidence,” where organized in 5 areas:
- Capture
- Accountability
- Globalization
- Financial and Operational Security
- Security and Stability
Working Group 4 is tasked with addressing “ICANN Transparency and Accountability”.
The Working Group 5 is tasked with addressing “DNS Security Issues within ICANN's Remit”
To avoid (as much as possible) overlap with these other working groups, WG2 will concentrate its work on the following 3 items:
- Capture
- Globalization
- Financial and Operational Security
During the last ICANN meeting in Cairo, ALS representatives had an in person meeting with PSC members and since then, At-Large participants have attended conference calls with PSC members’ participating.
Meanwhile, WG2 began its work – prior to the Mexico ICANN meeting and our ALS Summit held concurrently with the meeting, and also prior to the most recent revision of the PSC document “Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN” due out before the Mexico meeting. That revision, posted the 27 of February 2009, is available athttp://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/draft-iic-implementation-26feb09-en.pdf
As At-Large members, we are one of the newer stakeholder groups, having had a long and difficult history and to reach where we find ourselves today.
We are strong participants and supporters of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model.
1. Safeguarding against capture
At-Large suggests the following definition of “Capture”:
Capture may be defined in terms of a decision or a group of decisions taken by a sole party, or when an organization ends up acting systematically to favor particularvested interests.
So, for example, if one entity, interest, or group of interests has undue or out-of-proportion pressure, influence or control over ICANN, or any structural subdivision of ICANN, or any decision or group of decisions made within ICANN, ICANN may be considered to have been captured.
There are different possible ways to capture ICANN.Included among them would be capture of the organization, or capture of the policy making process.Capture may be full or partial, subtle or overt.The capturer could be a person, private or public entity, government, group of governments, or an international organization. The examples given are not intended to be exhaustive.
At-Large suggests the following actions as safeguards against capture:
- retain multi-stakeholder model
- broaden participation of all stakeholders
- give special attention to end-user participation
- broader involvement by all communities
- solicit, maintain and address the concerns of all constituencies
- stakeholder education and explanation regarding ICANN and its structures
- stakeholder education and explanation regarding the ICANN policy making process
- (better) facilitate participation in multiple languages
- creation of simple documents (translated into different languages), and/or document summaries and abstracts, to facilitate greater participation (also discussed under “internationalization” below)
- allow sufficient time for outreach and community feedback and comment
- protocol for reporting and investigation claims of capture or attempted capture
- a regular performance review process, to include risk analysis and consideration of complaints and investigations, to ensure the safeguards are actually working
Institutional confidence is a result of the ability to meaningfully participate.
Potential conflict of interests and non-disclosed interests of ICANN participants implicate capture concerns.Should, for example, a single individual be entitled to participate within ICANN wearing different hats? Each individual has the potential to speak on behalf of:
- Oneself, as an individual end-user
- One’s organization (e.g., group of end-users)
- One’s company or employer, as a business end-user or any other business having an interest in the ICANN process (e.g., registries, registrars, brand owners)
- One’s country
- One’s religion, tribe, or culture
- One’s moral, political or philosophical bent
At-Large suggests that participants be required to (1) disclose all (non-personal) affiliations and (2) state, fully and without reservation, on whose behalf the participant is acting. The ICANNWiki could be a good tool for facilitating affiliation disclosures.
Capture is also implicated by voting and structure participation.At-Large suggests consideration of the following options concerning voting and/or structure participation:
- Restriction on Voting Rights:
- One vote per person for each structure in which the person participates. If a person is a participant within more than one ICANN structure, that person would remain eligible to vote once in each of the structures; or
- One vote per person within the whole of ICANN, irrespective of the number of ICANN bodies the person participates in.If a person is a participant within more than one ICANN structure, that person would have to elect which structure she or he would vote in; or
- Restriction on Multiple Roles: A person cannot be elected or appointed to more than one ICANN body with voting rights.
Capture is also implicated by lack of accountability on the part of ICANN and the Board to issues raised by At-Large. WG2 participants expressed the perception that issues raised by ALS’ were either not being listened to or that there was no indication from the Board that the ALS’ concerns were being heard. At-Large suggests a mechanism be put in place, similar to that in place with the GAC, requiring the Board to provide some kind of response or feedback to issues raised by At-Large.
Also expressed was that At-Large have a more substantial way of influencing Board discussion and decisions. This could be through direct elections of Board members and would be in line with the final draft of the Independent ALAC Review document.
2. Further internationalization of ICANN
The Internet is a critical resource to all humanity.Given the economic and social importance globally of a safe and stable Internet, the process of internationalization of ICAAN must:
- safeguard the global/worldwide role of ICANN regarding domain names and numbers identifiers
- promote larger participation from all stakeholders globally
- …
At-Large agrees that governments should continue to play a role in the work of ICANN, but should not direct ICANN’s functions or decisions.No government should capture ICANN.ICANN should continue to move in a direction such that U.S. influence in ICANN’s work and decisions, whether real or just perceived, diminishes.While moving in this direction, ICANN needs to stay vigilant regarding the danger of capture by others.
At-Large already functions regularly in a very international environment. Our experiences can be useful to the larger ICANN community.We:
·regularly work in multiple languages, including in conference calls
·we produce documents in multiple languages
- we comprise real multi-regional bodies (i.e. ALAC, Ex-com, Secretariat coordination)
- the At Large Summit is fully tri-lingual
The internationalization of ICANN need address, respect and accommodate not only language issues, but also issues arising from cultural diversity.
ICANN has made good initial progress in producing important documents in the main UN languages. At-Large believes ICANN should go further to make a summary of all the ICANN documents available in English and in the main UN languages. In our view, having more summary documents translated is better than having some full documents translated. At the same time ICANN should encourage the preparation of original documents in languages other than English and arrange for the translation of these non-English documents as well.
Translations must be prepared in a timely manner with the goal of having the same document available in all languages at the same time, as opposed to the non-English versions lagging the English language versions.
At Large members expressed the view that ICANN should make a greater effort to geographically diversity its organs, staff and activities.One way to accomplish this would be to have important ICANN functions and responsibilities split among various regions, languages and cultures:
- Head quarter
- Chair of the Board
- Vice-Chair of the Board
- President and CEO
- Vice-presidents
- …
- Chairs of the SO/AC
- …
- Oversight by?
- …
- Bureaus
- Staff
- …
The splitting of functions and responsibility, however, should not be done in a way that would result in inefficiencies or duplication of effort. ICANN must also remain vigilant concerning the efficient use of its resources (topic 3 below).
More activities (to be determined) could be managed from outside the USA, through secretariats, for example, located in Europe, Australia, Canada, or South America.
The possibility of having ICANN comprised of a number of related entities, each a national of a state in a different region, was discussed.It was pointed out, however, that this would cause ICANN to become the subject of multiple and likely conflicting national laws and regulations, severely burdening ICANN and hampering its work.
During the process of internationalization, ICANN should avoid developing a burdensome bureaucracy of the type encountered among U.N. organizations. ICANN should remain flexible in order to accomplish its important work.
3. Exploring alternative sources of funding
Diversification of funding sources:
- Does ICANN need this?
- What is the goal of a diversification of funding sources?
- Is the goal more sources or/and more resources?
One of At-Larges’ main concerns is how ICANN is allocating and monitoring resources and funding sources. WG2 members felt ICANN should focus on using its current resources more efficiently, and that it implement a system that measures the effectiveness of its use of resources.
Currently, all the funds are coming from the registrants (individuals and businesses).
There was some discussion of looking to those businesses who obtain substantial revenues from E-Commerce as a source for additional ICANN revenues, but also expressed was the concern that ICANN should attempt to assess or tax activities not directly related to the DNS.
Any new funding should be without condition, express or implied.ICANN needs unfettered discretion in the manner it determines to use funds, for example, to subsidize improvements to infrastructure in areas that are economically disadvantaged.
If needed, what other funding sources could be acceptable to the individual end users?
And how will this change ICANN and its relationship with each and all the constituencies / stakeholders?
At Large agrees that capture, internationalization and the continued funding of ICANN are among the more important governance issues now facing ICANN. The ideas and recommendations presented above are offered to assist ICANN to better navigate these concerns. At Large is prepared to work together with the other ICANN constituencies to address and solve these issues.
First draft (in English) established by Sebastien Bachollet the 18th of February. Second draft (in English) established by Sebastien Bachollet the 23rd of February. Third draft (edition of the second) by Seth M. Reiss the 25th of February. Fourth draft by Seth M. Reiss the 3d of March. ---- (1]Members of the group ALS Rep Carlos Aguirre – LACRALO Izumi Aizu – APRALO Louis Houle – NARALO Tommi Karttaavi – EURALO Glenn McKnight – NARALO Antonio Medina Gomez – LACRALO Sivasubramanian Muthusamy – APRALO Jose Ovidio Salgueiro – LACRALO Aislan Vargas – LACRALO Mathias Altamira – LACRALO Mamonia Niangl – AFRALO
Adam Salazar – LACRALO
Chung L.Liu – APRALO Ting-Yun Chi – APRALO Jose Luis Barzallo – LACRALO
Non ALS Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond – Europe Cheryl B. Preston – NA
Samantha Eisneer – ICANN
Rapporteur: Seth Reiss – NARALO Vice-Chair: Sylvia Herlein Leite – LACRALO Chair: Sebastien Bachollet – EURALO
NEW VERSION (3)
At-Large Summit – Mexico
The Future Structure & Governance of ICANN – English
Working Group 2 will prepare a statement encapsulating the views of the At-Large community on “the future structure and governance of ICANN”. This is a major current initiative of ICANN, referred to as the “Improving Institutional Confidence” process.
More than two years ago, the President’s Strategy Committee (PSC) commenced a series of consultations on how to strengthen and complete the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. In addition, the recent midterm review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the United States Department of Commerce and ICANN produced useful comments about ICANN’s performance and future.
More information about this process may be found at http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence-revised.htm
Document prepared by Working Group 2(1]**
Comments responding to documents prepared by the PSC, and specifically concerning “Improving Institutional Confidence,” where organized in 5 areas:
- Capture
- Accountability
- Globalization
- Financial and Operational Security
- Security and Stability
Working Group 4 is tasked with addressing “ICANN Transparency and Accountability”.
The Working Group 5 is tasked with addressing “DNS Security Issues within ICANN's Remit”
To avoid (as much as possible) overlap with these other working groups, WG2 will concentrate its work on the following 3 items:
- Capture
- Globalization
- Financial and Operational Security
During the last ICANN meeting in Cairo, At-Large members had an in person meeting with PSC members and since then, At-Large participants have attended conference calls with PSC members’ participating.
Meanwhile, WG2 has begun its work – prior to the Mexico ICANN meeting and our ALS Summit and also prior to the most recent revision of the PSC document “Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN” due out before the Mexico meeting.
The new version http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/draft-iic-implementation-26feb09-en.pdf was posted the 27 of February 2009.
As At-Large members, we are one of the newer stakeholder groups, having a long and difficult history and to get where we find ourselves within the ICANN structure today.
We are strong participants and supporters of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model.
1. Safeguarding against capture
At-Large suggests the following definition of “Capture”:
If one party is able to have a decision or a group of decisions taken by this sole party, or if the entire organization ends up acting systematically to favor particular vested interests. Is the process of taking over control of an organization in full, or gaining partial control by way of gaining undue influence.
[Capture is the undue and out-of-proportion pressure, influence or control of or co-optation by any one person, entity or group of interests over the processes or the results of ICANN decision making.
In other words, capture occurs when one entity, interest, or group of interests has undue or out-of-proportion pressure, influence or control over ICANN, or any structural subdivision of ICANN, or any decision or group of decisions made within ICANN.[
There are different possible ways to capture ICANN, including
One way would be to capture the organization.
Another would be to capture the policy making process.
And there maybe others.
Capture in ICANN context is the the process of any one person, entiry or organization taking over full control of management or gaining partial control by way of gaining undue influence, overtly or subtly.
Risk analisy
At-Large suggests the following actions as safeguards against capture:
* ^^^^ broaden participation of all stakeholders
- ^^^^ broader involvement by all communities
- ^^^^ solicit, maintain and address the concerns of all constituencies
- ^^^^ explain the policy making process
- ^^^^ allow participation in multiple languages
- ^^^^ creation of simple documents (translated into different languages) to help people to participate
- ^^^^ sufficient time to allow real outreach to the communities for feedback and comment
- ^^^^ a clear performance review process is needed to make sure that the safeguards are actually working
- ^^^^ process for reporting and investigating claims of attempted capture
Another question is how a single individual can participate in ICANN wearing different hats within different ICANN structures. Each indivdual can speak on behalf of:
- Oneself, as individual end-user
- One’s organization (e.g., group of end-users…)
- One’s company, as a business end-user or any other business engaged in the ICANN process (registry – registrar -…)
- One’s country
- …
Participants need to disclose all affiliations and to state – fully and without reservation – on who’s behalf the participant is talking – the ICANNWiki could be a good tool for facilitating affiliation disclosures.
Voting options for ICANN participants include:
- one vote per person within the whole ICANN, irrespective of the number of ICANN bodies the person participates in
- one vote per person for each ICANN body the person participate’s in
- restriction that one person can’t be elected to more than one ICANN body at any given time
- …
WG2 supports the points N° 3 and 2, in that order.
2. Further internationalization of ICANN
It is important to:
- safeguard the global/worldwide role of ICANN regarding domain names and numbers identifiers
- promote larger participation from all stakeholders globally
- …
At-Large functions regularly as much as possible in a very international environment.
Our experiences can be useful to the full ICANN community:
- At-Large works in multiple languages (even for conf call)
- we produce documents in multiple languages
- we comprise real multi-regional bodies (i.e. ALAC, Ex-com, Secretariat coordination)
- the At Large Summit will be fully tri-lingual
It is not only necessary to address language issues, but also issues of cultural … diversity.
ICANN has made good initial progress in producing important documents in the main UN languages. But we think it would be even better to have a summary of all the ICANN documents in English and in the main UN languages. Having more summary documents translated is better than having some full documents translated. At the same time ICANN must encourage preparation of original non-English documents and organize the translation of these non-English documents as well.
Translations must be prepared in a timely manner with the goal of haveing the same document available in all languages at the same time.
One way to think about the future internationalization of ICANN is to have all important functions/responsibilities split into various regions/languages/cultures:
- Head quarter
- Chair of the Board
- Vice-Chair of the Board
- President and CEO
- Vice-presidents
- …
- Chairs of the SO/AC
- …
- Oversight by?
- …
- Bureaus
- Staff
- …
- Some activities (to be determined) should be managed from outside the USA, through a secretariat, for example in Europe, Australia, Canada...South America...
3. Exploring alternative sources of funding
Diversification of funding sources:
- Does ICANN need this?
- What is the goal of a diversification of funding sources?
- Is the goal more sources or/and more resources?
One of our main concerns is how ICANN is allocating and monitoring resources and funding sources.
Ultimately, all the funds are coming from the registrants (individuals and businesses).
If needed, what other funding sources could be acceptable to the individual end users?
And how will this change ICANN and its relationship with each and all the constituencies / stakeholders?
First draft (in English) established by Sebastien Bachollet the 18th of February at 9:30am UTC.
Second draft (in English) established by Sebastien Bachollet the 23rd of February at 22:10am UTC
Third draft (edition of the second) by Seth M. Reiss the 25th of February.
(1]Members of the group
Carlos Aguirre - LACRALO / Izumi Aizu - APRALO / Vittorio Bertola - EURALO / Victor Ciza - AFRALO /
Louis Houle - NARALO / Rachida Jouhari - AFRALO / Tommi Karttaavi - EURALO / Didier Kasole - AFRALO /
Fernando Maresca - LACRALO / Glenn McKnight - NARALO / Michael Miranda - NARALO /
Antonio Medina Gomez - LACRALO / Sivasubramanian Muthusamy - APRALO / George Otieno - AFRALO
Jose Ovidio Salgueiro - LACRALO / Jose Salguiero - LACRALO /Vanda Scartezini - LACRALO
Michel Tchonang - AFRALO / Aislan Vargas – LACRALO
Rapporteur: Seth Reiss - NARALO
Vice-Chair: Sylvia Herlein Leite - LACRALO
Chair: Sebastien Bachollet - EURALO
h1. ----
NEW VERSION (2)
At-Large Summit – Mexico
The Future Structure & Governance of ICANN
**
Working Group 2 will prepare a statement encapsulating the views of the At-Large community on the future structure and governance of ICANN. This is a major area of work in ICANN at the present, known as the “Improving Institutional Confidence” process.
More than two years ago, the President’s Strategy Committee (PSC) commenced a series of consultations on how to strengthen and complete the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. In addition, the recent midterm review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the United States Department of Commerce and ICANN produced useful comments about ICANN’s performance and future.
More information about this process may be found at http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence-revised.htm
Document prepared by Working Group 2|1]|https://st.icann.org/static/3.1.2.8/skin/s3/html/wikiwyg.html#_ftn1]**
**
The comments around the documents prepared by the PSC and specifically “Improving Institutional Confidence” where organized in 5 areas:
·Capture
·Accountability
·Globalization
·Financial and Operational Security
·Security and Stability
The Working Group 4 is working on “ICANN Transparency and Accountability”.
The Working Group 5 is working on “DNS Security Issues within ICANN's Remit”
To avoid (as much as possible) overlap this WG2 concentrate his work on the following 3 items:
·Capture
·Globalization
·Financial and Operational Security
During the last Icann meeting in Cairo we had an in person meeting with PSC members and since we had different conference calls also with the PSC members’ participation.
In the same time we are starting our work – prior to the Mexico Icann meeting and our ALS Summit and also prior to the last release of the document “Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN” du before the Mexico meeting.
As At-Large members we are one of the newer stakeholder group and with a long story to be where we are today.
We are strong participants and supporter of multi-stakeholder ICANN’s model.
1. Safeguarding against capture
At-Large suggests the following definition of “Capture”:
Capture can be defined as the process of taking over control of an organization in full, or gaining partial control by way of gaining undue influence. Capture in ICANN context is the the process of any one person, entiry or organization taking over full control of management or gaining partial control by way of gaining undue influence, overtly or subtly.
“If one party is able to have a decision or a group of decisions taken by this sole party or if the entire organization end up acting systematically to favor those particular vested interests”.
There are different and possible ways to capture Icann. One is to capture the organization and the other one is to capture the policy making process.
At-Large seeks the following actions as safeguards against capture:
·broaden participation
·broader involvement of all communities’
·necessity to recruit, maintain and address the concerns of all constituencies
·explain the policy making process
·allow participation in various languages
·simple documents (in different languages) to help people to participate
·enough time to allow real outreach to the communities for feedback and comment
Another question is how a single person can participate with possible different hats in different structure. Each one of us can speak on behalf of:
·Him as individual end-user
·His organization (group of end-users…)
·His company as business end-user or any other business engage in the ICANN process (registry – registrar -…)
·His country
·…
Any participant need to disclose all those affiliations and to tell – here and now – on behalf of whom he is talking – Icann Wiki could be a good tool for that purpose.
We suggest the following way of voting
1.one vote one person in the whole ICANN
2.one vote one person in each body the person participate
3.one person can’t be elected in more than one body
4.…
We support in that order the point N° 3 and 2.
2. Further internationalization of ICANN
It is an important issue to:
·safeguard the global/worldwide role of ICANN regarding domain names and numbers identifiers
·enable larger participation from all around the world from all stakeholders
·…
At-Large is acting each day as much as possible in a very international environment.
Our experiences can be useful for the full community:
·working in multiple languages (even for conf call)
·documents in multiple languages
·real multi-regional bodies (i.e. ALAC, Ex-com, Secretariat coordination)
·the Summit is fully tri-lingual
It is not just the need to cover languages issues but also cultural … diversity.
Icann is doing a good step ahead in producing important documents in the main UN languages. But we think it will be even better to have a summary of all the Icann documents in English and in the main UN language. More summary documents translate is better than some full documents translated.
In the other hand Icann must encourage elaboration of non English documents and organize the translation too.
The translations must happen in a timely manner end the goal must be to have the document in all languages in the same time.
One way to think the future of ICANN regarding internationalization is to have all important functions/responsibilities split into various regions/languages/cultures:
·Head quarter
·Chair of the Board
·Vice-Chair of the Board
·President and CEO
·Vice-presidents
·…
·Chairs of the SO/AC
·…
·Oversight by?
·…
·Bureaus
·Staff
·…
·Some activities (to be determined) should be managed basically outside USA, through a secretariat in Europe, Australia, Canada...South America...
3. Exploring alternative sources of funding
Diversification of funding sources
Do ICANN need that?
What is the goal of a diversification of funding sources?
It is more sources or/and more resources?
One of our main concerns is how ICANN is working and monitoring allocation of resources and funding sources.
Actually all the fond are coming from the registrants (individuals and businesses).
If needed, for individual end users what other funding sources could be acceptable?
And what it will change for ICANN and the relation with each and all the constituencies / stakeholders?
First draft established by Sebastien Bachollet the 18th of February at 9:30am UTC. Second draft established by Sebastien Bachollet the 23rdof February at 22:10am UTC.
(1|https://st.icann.org/static/3.1.2.8/skin/s3/html/wikiwyg.html#_ftnref1]Members of the group
Carlos Aguirre - LACRALO / Izumi Aizu - APRALO / Vittorio Bertola - EURALO / Victor Ciza - AFRALO /
Louis Houle - NARALO / Rachida Jouhari - AFRALO / Tommi Karttaavi - EURALO / Didier Kasole - AFRALO /
Fernando Maresca - LACRALO / Glenn McKnight - NARALO / Michael Miranda - NARALO /
Antonio Medina Gomez - LACRALO / Sivasubramanian Muthusamy - APRALO / George Otieno - AFRALO
Jose Ovidio Salgueiro - LACRALO / Jose Salguiero - LACRALO /Vanda Scartezini - LACRALO
Michel Tchonang - AFRALO / Aislan Vargas – LACRALO
Rapporteur: Seth Reiss - NARALO
Vice-Chair: Sylvia Herlein Leite - LACRALO
Chair: Sebastien Bachollet - EURALO
At-Large Summit – Mexico
The Future Structure & Governance of ICANN
Working Group 2 will prepare a statement encapsulating the views of the At-Large community on the future structure and governance of ICANN. This is a major area of work in ICANN at the present, known as the “Improving Institutional Confidence” process.
More than two years ago, the President’s Strategy Committee (PSC) commenced a series of consultations on how to strengthen and complete the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. In addition, the recent midterm review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the United States Department of Commerce and ICANN produced useful comments about ICANN’s performance and future.
More information about this process may be found athttp://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence-revised.htm
h2. Document prepared by Working Group 2(1|https://st.icann.org/static/3.1.2.8/skin/s3/html/wikiwyg.html#_ftn1]**
The comments around the documents prepared by the PSC and specifically “Improving Institutional Confidence” where organized in 5 areas:
- Capture
- Accountability
- Globalization
- Financial and Operational Security
- Security and Stability
The Working Group 4 is working on “ICANN Transparency and Accountability”.
The Working Group 5 is working on “DNS Security Issues within ICANN's Remit”
To avoid (as much as possible) overlap this WG2 concentrate his work on the following 3 items:
- Capture
- Globalization
- Financial and Operational Security
During the last Icann meeting in Cairo we had an in person meeting with PSC members and since we had different conference calls also with the PSC members’ participation.
In the same time we are starting our work – prior to the Mexico Icann meeting and our ALS Summit and also prior to the last release of the document “Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN” du before the Mexico meeting.
As At-Large members we are one of the newer stakeholder group and with a long story to be where we are today.
We are strong participants and supporter of multi-stakeholder ICANN’s model.
1. Safeguarding against capture
There are different and possible ways to capture Icann. One is to capture the organization and the other one is to capture the policy making process.
At-Large seeks the following actions as safeguards against capture:
- broaden participation
- broader involvement of all communities’
- necessity to recruit, maintain and address the concerns of all constituencies
- allow participation in various languages
- simple documents (in different languages) to help people to participate
Another question is how a single person can participate with possible different hats in different structure. Each one of us can speak on behalf of:
- Him as individual end-user
- His organization (group of end-users…)
- His company as business end-user or any other business engage in the ICANN process (registry – registrar -…)
- His country
- …
Do we want to apply?
- one vote one person in the whole ICANN
- one vote one person in each body the person participate
- ·one person can’t be elected in more than one body
- …
2. Further internationalization of ICANN
It is an important issue to:
- safeguard the global/worldwide role of ICANN regarding domain names and numbers identifiers
- enable larger participation from all around the world from all stakeholders
- …
At-Large is acting each day as much as possible in a very international environment.
Our experiences can be useful for the full community.
- working in multiple languages (even for conf call)
- documents in multiple languages
- real multi-regional bodies (i.e. ALAC, Ex-com, Secretariat coordination)
One way to think the future of ICANN regarding internationalization is to have all important functions/responsibilities split into various regions/languages/cultures:
- Head quarter
- Chair
- Vice-Chair
- President and CEO
- Vice-president
- …
- Chairs of the SO/AC
- …
- Oversight by?
- …
- Bureaus
- Staff
- …
3. Exploring alternative sources of funding
Diversification of funding sources
Do ICANN need that?
What is the goal of a diversification of funding sources?
It is more sources or/and more resources?
Actually all the fond are coming from the registrants (individuals and businesses).
If needed, for individual end users what other funding sources could be acceptable?
And what it will change for ICANN and the relation with each and all the constituencies / stakeholders?
First draft established by Sebastien Bachollet the 18th of February at 9:30am UTC.
(1|https://st.icann.org/static/3.1.2.8/skin/s3/html/wikiwyg.html#_ftnref1]Members of the group
Carlos Aguirre - LACRALO / Izumi Aizu - APRALO / Vittorio Bertola - EURALO / Victor Ciza - AFRALO /
Louis Houle - NARALO / Rachida Jouhari - AFRALO / Tommi Karttaavi - EURALO / Didier Kasole - AFRALO /
Fernando Maresca - LACRALO / Glenn McKnight - NARALO / Michael Miranda - NARALO /
Antonio Medina Gomez - LACRALO / Sivasubramanian Muthusamy - APRALO / George Otieno - AFRALO
Jose Ovidio Salgueiro - LACRALO / Seth Reiss - NARALO / Jose Salguiero - LACRALO /Vanda Scartezini - LACRALO
Michel Tchonang - AFRALO / Aislan Vargas – LACRALO
Vice-Chair: Sylvia Herlein Leite - LACRALO
Chair: Sebastien Bachollet - EURALO
