Response to the call for public inputs concerning the @large study

Un article de Wiki.

1.Introduction

This response is proposed on behalf of France@large, a non profit registered association aiming at being a non partisan kernel for the French @large community. It has been formed by the French former candidates to the ICANN election of 2000. It manages several mailing lists including the icann-fra@egroups.com mailing list. It has already organized several press conferences and the visit of M. Andy Mueller Maguhn in France (visiting DNSO/GA, AFNIC, DNSO/BC, Parliament). It is currently setting up the http://large e-network (a network of similar partnering local support at the http://nation.large.tp and nation@large.tp addresses: planned by Jan 1st 2001).

It wants to stay a small service center to the advantage to the French @large community, to help preparing its future elections and participation into different projects.

1.1.Document update

This document has been prepared in calling upon the inputs of the Members of France@large and of several fora. Its size, the time schedule allowed and a virus on the machine of the author have delayed a common review. We therefore reserve our rights to publish revisions of his text until December 31st and a reviewed version before the end of January. Further on, we will keep the Study Group informed of our updates as they may occur.

2. Perspectives

This response takes the into consideration:

  • the published desire to reach a consensus through the result of the @large study conceived both as an inquiry and as an instrument of dialog.
  • the acknowledgment of the multiple controversies concerning the ICANN, the wish to address them through a “clean sheet” approach which may lead to 0 to 19 @large Directors and the readiness to accept changes in the structure of the ICANN if required.
  • the positive result of the limited experience of 2000 leading – if the interest and the motivations are similar and indeed sustained as investigated – to a possible million of voters or more and probably up to 20.000 people interested in being candidates.

We think a typo the mention in the otherwise well prepared Staff document that for this major structural study, the ICANN would have not planed a budget. Otherwise it would obviously be resented as a mockery against the entire internet community, with consequences we do not dare to imagine.

2.1.Used vocabulary

To simplify this response we have forged the word « netwide » for all the aspects of general interest, not specific to the @large community. An example of this wording may be found here: the BoD currently gathers 9 netwide and 9 @large Directors plus the ICANN President.

A simple test is the main priority of the concern: if that main priority is to a private user interest, the concern is @large. If the main priority is of general interest, the concern is netwide. It is understood that the second priority of @large is general interest and the second priority of netwide is best support of private interests: this permits cooperation, dialog and mutual review towards best joint management.

3. The study Group

The Staff propositions concerning the creation of the Study Group are acceptable with the following provisions:

  • we do not think advisable an active Director heads the Study Group. Not only the BoD has not reached yet the consensus we are looking for, but controversies will probably rise during the year 2001 which will involve all the active Directors. We therefore firmly request that a former Director (we suggest Mrs. Dyson or Mr. Crew) heads the Study Group. To avoid legitimacy dispute concerning the Study group its Members should be accepted by the majority of the current @large Directors (including the four so-called “squatters”).
  • we support that an expert in elections participates to the study group. The current image of the US system and the need for a real international culture and experience call for this expert to be from the EEC which currently organizes the largest popular international vote.
  • the Study Group needs to build an international credibility and should therefore seat neither in California nor in D.C.
  • the Study Group should invite in its own working Mailing List guest experts and existing or developing @large organizations under NDA. This would allow a permanent test of the consensus possibilities. These guests could also be delegated some investigations.

4.Which @larges for which ICANN

There is a common dissatisfaction among stakeholders concerning the current set up of the ICANN, perceived as an “USG-down” organization trying to stay the autonomous “up” of a still to be defined “bottom”.

The study should therefore define who are the @large, if they are the “bottom”, what is the ICANN they have to co-administrate, why have they to co-administrate it. The integration of 50% of its management would certainly call for a review and a renovation of any organization: this also true for the ICANN.

In a nutshell this @large study is about how “@larging” the ICANN.

4.1. The basis: the internet community

4.1.1. general internet

The RFC.2026 says the Internet is a loosely-organized international collaboration of autonomous, interconnected networks (which probably belong to the @large) through the voluntary adherence to open protocols and procedures defined by Internet Standards (under probable guidance of what we name the netwide).

4.1.2. stakeholders: experts/users vs. netwide/@large

The BoD is currently split in @large and non@large (netwide) Directors. This duality should be investigated first as it is a source of misunderstandings and disputes blocking the consensus. This is often described as experts/lobbies vs. users/market, what seems to be blatantly inexact since there are experts among the second group and non-experts among the first one.

Our own understanding is a difference of concern by people very often wearing both hats: between the personal interest (the @large concern protecting his own business, projects, rights, intellectual and commercial properties) and global interest (the netwide concerns: making the common system to work: protocols, TLD, domain name procedures, etc..).

If our analysis is exact – what we would advise to investigate at start – the premises for a consensus building are rather different and new avenues are open.

4.1.3 The different types of internet communities

The worldwide Internet community is actually split into many smaller permanent or occasional communities. They may be local including users from a country and of the legacy TLDs, ISP oriented (AOL, Wanadoo, etc…), news or e-mail oriented communities. As the @large are necessarily members of one or several communities: we think important to understand from the 2000 vote and through an investigation the true importance of these communities and how they could share into selections, nominations, education and management? For which return?

This covers community segments from:

  • NICs and ccTLDs
  • ISPs and big services like MicroSoft, AOL, Yahoo, local portals, etc…
  • e-mail and news
  • associations and trends (human rights, augmented.root, icannwatch, IDNO, etc…)

4.1.4 Best Practice by ccTLDs

One example of living consensus comes from the NICs which manage a part of the public domain to the advantage of their agreeing local community. One of the interesting point is that the DNSO/ccTLDs (NICs) do not look for their legitimacy from the IANA but from their user community. In their Best Practices, they oblige themselves to help developing their community (what includes @large) while managing netwide oriented services and support to their benefit (domain names, IP addresses, education, R&D, root machines, etc.). This rises questions like:

  • does the @large local community expect this?
  • what are the advantages and the return for the NICs?
  • what the NICs would be ready to do more? for which additional return?
  • do the @large community have additional suggestions?

4.1.5. NICs

Most of the non informed people we asked thought that the ICANN was the NICs international association. Many quoted pertinent examples of what their NIC is doing a part from national ccTLD management: IP addresses, ISP relations, interface with the ICANN, center of expertise, root system co-management. We think the reasons of this common feeling should be investigated to better understand the NICs image within the @large and to determine what @large could expect or share with national NICs.

4.1.6. Governments

National Community Partnerships necessarily include Governments which are part in any form of consensus and share in the day to day economical, cultural, legal, etc… life of the network. Through GAC and direct contacts, the Study Team should determine the real impact of the Governments, direct and indirect, both on national users and on the ICANN structure.

It should look the ways (organization of the ICANN, independence, forms of organization, place of incorporation, ownership of the root, alliances with other international bodies, etc…) to stabilize the ICANN, its communities and their rights vis à vis the different Governments.

The USG case should be addressed through the general government analysis. This seems the only way to prevent some large Governments to start their own Internet policy. This seems to be in accordance both with the White Paper and with the new administration line. This obviously removes the USG protection from the ICANN, but the ICANN must chose between being a international common administrator for names and numbers and the US NIC.

4.1.7. @large: the market in direct

One of the commonly acceptable description of the @large is to say they are the market. This rises a certain number of questions concerning their real representation of the market and about the quality of such a representation and the ways to use it a permanent, direct and interactive model for market studies.

One of the lessons we learned from the French Minitel is that in interactive Media the market is also the producer of the content (news, mail, infos) and the owner of the machines (virtual hosts, colocation, small companies, etc..), so the market is the real owner of the system.

The Study Group should investigate the equality “@large=market”. The @large Members are probably today only an informed layer of the market. But they are destined to expand to all the other Internet users layers. This aspect is important when searching for a consensus since it introduces a variable environment that voters selections methods may drastically modify.

4.2 the impact of the study toward a consensus

This study has certainly an impact by itself on the @large community. This is shown by the different responses to the present request for comments. Its final objectives should therefore be carefully worded not to hamper its own task.

4.2.1. not to prevent a consensus

While we agree with most of the IV.3. we think advisable to rephrase some of the questions to avoid that the Study Group is fought a priori by half the planet.

a. Is the current Board repartition adequate?
b. How many Directors should count the ICANN, from 0 to 19?
c. … etc OK.

4.2.2 a bottom-up model to replace an USG-down organization in search of a bottom

Most of the ICANN problems, starting with its difficulty in evaluating @large Members, result from its surprising legal structure by a complex provincial Golf Club oriented law and lacking international concerns (as if the UN had been set up as an east-Manhattan middle-age Club).

Many will never cooperate with the ICANN nor leave others cooperate until a “clean shit” also consider a possible abandon of the no-member structure, a re-incorporation outside of the USA, a 0 to 19 @large Director option, a network stability both through the ICANN bylaws stability and a joint root management open to all, a real investigation, analysis and joint work towards mutual warranties between the various Internet interests: governments, industry, Telcos, NICs, TLDs, DN and TM owners, etc…

Such an objective could be clearly shown through this additional question:

f. the best incorporation law and formula for an ICANN with a Membership granting a network stability and a fair management under an international governmental acceptance.”

4.2.3revision of RFC.1591 or issue of a BCP RFC

Today the @large study is perceived by most as a political trick (the announced lack of budget confirming that perception). The only way to demonstrate otherwise is to make it a consensus based community replacement for the White Paper. In Internet culture, this can only be achieved through the revision of the RFC.1591.

This revision is mandatory since a) the wording of this fundamental RFC is partly obsolete and b) no consensus may be reached against that RFC.

This RFC is the only credible place to write a consensus and to keep it accepted in building upon new developments. On such a revised and extended RFC.1591 the @large community and the entire net will be able to develop new concepts of common interests, settling the consensus. Point 11 gives an example of consensus for such an RFC, to open the debate.

4.3. ICANN revision

The @large study is necessarily an ICANN revision study. There are several thesis about such a revision, mostly seen through the final definition of the number of @large Directors. In fact a change or a confirmation of the current equilibrium involves so many aspects that it will be a true re-foundation of the ICANN which cannot be made through a n.th bylaw change.

To be correctly carried such a change calls for a good evaluation of where we come from and where we may want to go. For each of the questions risen here after we should consider: the White Paper, the RFC.1591, the current ICANN practice, the reduction of the Digital Divide, the research of consensus.

4.3.1. communities of stakeholders (of competence)

the study must define the different stakeholders and if the formula stakeholder is adequate as everyone have things at stake and interest in global stability. Hence maybe should we replace stake holding by competence or by interest? This may lead to new forms of democracy to avoid constituency hi-jacking.

  • we need a complete vision of these communities to better organize their dialog for a living consensus (interests are constantly moving) probably through a revision of the Support organizations (in recent months the DNSO has shown itself to be a substitute for @large).
  • an investigation/analysis should be carried about the degree and threshold of concern of these communities members. The target is to evaluate what the Members are ready to delegate, want to be consulted upon and what is not negotiable.
  • the internal organization of the communities is of real interest as their common features could be incorporated in a future ICANN definition for stability purposes. Example: if every @large community creates a non partisan structure as France@large, it might be worth considering to which extent such a structure could be linked to the ICANN.

4.3.2.@large presence

The @large presence is a general question for the ICANN. This presence is considered by the Staff document only à BoD level. This does not seem to be the White Paper approach. It is not our approach. We therefore call for an investigation concerning various conceptions ranging from no @large presence to an @large participation at every level/organization of the ICANN.

Questions are:

  • should the @large be present in the Support Organizations as such
  • should an @large support organization be created
  • should there be a modification of he Support Organization concept to accommodate the @large * principle (would that not be a clarification of some existing confusions)
  • should such changes be parallel to other changes related to the ccTLDs and NICs and allow a consensual permanent dialog at SO and SO/WG level?
  • should the @large concept be limited to the ICANN or should it be also used in other Internet governance organizations?
  • if yes in which ones: NICs? TLDs? IEFT? WIPO relations? ….

In particular, we strongly support the idea that the @large Study Group should cooperate with the DNSO/WG-Review on the points of mutual interest quoted above.

In particular this could permit a better definition of the @large candidates selection process. The objective would be to make sure that all the @large interests currently identified through the DNSO experience would be represented during the @large elections. It would also permit the DNSO/NC to be relieved from non strictly domain oriented concerns.

4.3.3.structural organization

Whatever its future orientations the ICANN will stay a meeting point for netwide and @large concerns. There should be a simple rule to determine the equilibrium between these two priorities so the ICANN may consistently structure, now and in the future. .

Our opinion is that the 50/50 is a conceptually fair approach. It also takes into account that persons of both concerns may wear both hats and are equally concerned by the best common Internet interest.

This point should however be discussed with the community as some may have different propositions and rise points of exception based upon experience.

4.3.4.number of Directors

The number of Directors must be questionable. A “clean sheet” approach means no a priori. It is therefore possible to discuss from 0 to 19 @large Directors. Publishing this is an important point to demonstrate that this study is fair. And a good incentive for everyone to participate.

However, the common initial options are 0 and 9 @large Directors. The zero option is suicidal for the ICANN as the @large would respond in organizing an alternative ICANN with every chance of success since the money, the systems and the users are part of the @large community.

We do not support any a priori position, but we do not think that the 9 @large option is negotiable. We therefore propose to investigate several steps:

  • a possible extension to 21 Directors for a better representation of the geographical areas based not only on populations but also on the geographical situations. The ICANN is not a place of power but a place to address and solve network organizations issues.
  • there is an obvious opposition within the BoD to the normal @large representation which went to – on our opinion - unfair moves. We think their representatives should be made to voice out their concerns so they might be really addressed, or they should go.
  • the equilibrium within the BoD also concerns the netwide part. We think that the NICs should play a more important part within the BoD (they pay 1/3 of the budget) and in the whole ICANN structure for better local services. This should result in one the 3 Directors elected by each SO to be NICs representatives. So they would get 3 netwide Directors.

We initially questioned the presence of the President among the Directors. After consideration we think this advisable if the Chairman and the President are not from the same geographical area.

5. @large Constituency

Here we only list (documented) questions we think of interest to the Study Group, without advocating any response: our suggested initial model to start a debate is presented in 11. We do not pretend to be exhaustive and we reserve our right to add new points based upon experience.

5.1. extended @large concept

  • should the @large Members contribute to the cost of their identification and voting
  • should the @large Members be considered as statutory Members of the ICANN
  • duration of the Membership
  • mailing list
  • keeping the @large Member interest all the year long: a need or not? if yes how?
  • is the @large concept good for ICANN only
  • which other Internet organization should share it?
  • would we want an unique @large representation or specialized @large representations
  • would there probably be an “@wide” coordination between these @large representations
  • should the ICANN to consider such “@wide” coordination to try to address global issues


5.2.TLD and NIC best practices

  • what is the implication of the TLDs in the @large communities
  • CINIC concept (common interest NIC) and member names instead of domain names
  • applications of new TLDs through local NICs
  • organization of the support of @large by NICs
  • possibility to accept CINICs to collect @large members.
  • participation of @large in NIC and CINIC administration
  • organization of the ICANN election jointly with NICs @large elections
  • PIN by local NICs
  • nomination of ICANN candidates by NICs

5.3. fighting hi-jacking and fraud

  • will the number of voters be a protection against hijacking?
  • suggestions about governmental hijacking
  • would it be a good point to run local NIC @large election at the same date as worldwide or *geographical area based ICANN @large elections.
  • would you trust a local organization against fraud
  • would in your country the postal service an acceptable solution for address verification

5.3.paying/recognized Members?

  • would you accept to pay a small fee for Membership verification and voting costs ?
  • would you accept an international ID to be built in encrypting in an unreadable way your name, country, date of birth, sex to avoid duplicates
  • would you expect in such a case some advantages?
  • if yes which kind of advantages: information, being consulted on different Internet related issues, to participate in mailing lists, etc…
  • would you accept that the list of the international ID be matched with your e-mail address and be shared between the ICANN, the NIC and your @large national site.

5.4. @large organization: national, TLD, ISP, international, functional

The @large constituency is organizing progressively itself rather quickly. It started working in august, carried the selection, the election, self organized meetings at MDR, new Directors being installed, mailing lists to be activated with good participation, several structured responses to this request for comments.

It is to be expected that during the period of the study several important @large organization process will occur. Questions will then be risen about cooperation and relative weight of these structures.

This observable trend already concern:

  • the existing sites for user rights (meetings in MDR, IDNO re-structuring, e-humanrights) and mailing lists such as icann-europe, icann-candidates, icann-fra …
  • the creation of national @large sites to the image our own France@large project
  • the DNSO revamping. Several @large concerns have found a place there which should be progressively accepted as @large, with the result of a better organization of the DNSO. This has been observed by the increasing @large oriented concerns within the DNSO:
  • the DNSO/BC took position during the @large election, favoring some candidates
  • the DNSO/GA actively pursued an @large oriented issues (4 @large Directors)

The Study Group should stay aware of these changes as they occur since it is another way of the @large community to vote.

6. Representation of the @large at the BoD

Here we want only rise technical questions concerning the elective process and the seat allocation. The current repartition is purely accidental. But it could lead to an interesting repartition with 5 Directors elected on a geographical basis and 4 elected on special interest on a worldwide basis. An alternative is also a more involved geographical repartition of the site (at subcontinent level).

6.1.Elective Process

6.1.1.Experience from 2000 vote'

Question concerning the 2000 vote have been extensively covered in other letters we supported (by Thomas Roesller from the ICANN-EUROPE mailing list and Barbara Simon). We would like to add a new consideration which is the size. We may expect that the work achieved multiplies the number of concerned voters and people interested in being candidate by 10 to 30. The Study group should try to work out what are the motivations which will probably stay unchanged, what may change due to the number or of the density (cross relations, press coverage, ad-hoc associations and mailing lists) and what the technical evolution may bring in the coming two years in term of mailing and information capacity.

6.1.2.The PIN solution

The only lesson of the 2000 vote we should keep really in mind is that a centrally PIN system and data base is not appropriate. No one could really handle millions of envelopes and tens of thousands of people having a PIN problem and hundred thousands of returned mails.

6.2. direct vote

Our position is that the @large must equal to direct vote, per geographical area for geographically oriented Directors, on a worldwide basis for specialized Directors if any. The reason why which should be investigated is the legitimacy granted to the Directors elect. This is – in front of the technical competence and industry back-up of the netwide Directors – a necessity to discuss, reach and maintain consensus.

6.2.selection process

The selection process chosen for the 2000 election was inadequate, specially in Europe and in North America. However the number of candidates was important and would probably be at least in proportion of the enlarged number of voter next time. The consensus here would be to refuse any selection committee and to use a “natural” selection process.

This process could be a double election. For geographically oriented candidacies, a first national election would permit to elect @large Directors of the national NICs (or national @large associations). Then only the different NICs Directors elect could be nominated by other Directors, with a minimum number of nominations coming from different countries.

This process could be also used for non specialized candidacies. Specialized associations, support organizations, etc… could only nominate candidates.

6.3.constituencies: geographical areas, trades, implications

The elections should be direct. Two types of constituencies could be used :

  • on a geographical area basis as per the 2000 vote for a geographical general interest representation. The 2000 election made different kind of interest represented : scientists, users, small business, university based business, large corporations.
  • on a worldwide basis for specialized candidacies. The Study Group should investigate a representation of areas like: Telcos, Content Providers, individual domain owners, TLDs.

6.5. Campaign Management

The ICANN management of the campaign has been inappropriate. The ICANN should not be concerned by the details of the campaign and mailing exchanges. The site of the candidate should be indicated, possibly its mailing list. No more. The capacity to dialog with the voters is an important element of the voter’s decision. It should not be blurred by the ICANN involvement.

The ICANN (and associated NICs on our point of view) detain the email of the voters. A reminder of the candidate sites should be made every week. Links to specialized sites commenting or documenting the campaign should also be provided.

The ICANN is not “selling” the candidates, but permitting its @large Members to select them. It has a duty of common information for a fair process but has no duty to participate in the campaign and impose some formats for candidate comparisons. This belongs to an @large inter-candidate consensus or to private initiatives.

7. ways of having the maximum number of @large involved

A fair election is to involve the maximum number of voters, i.e. of @large Members. A permanent Membership subscription campaign is to be conducted. There are different way to carry that process at good cost/performance ratio. The Study Group should report on them.

7.1. through elections

The ICANN’s target is to gather Members for the BoD elections. Keeping people voting is a way to get more an more voter, if their votes have an impact and to keep them involved.

7.1.1. only at the BoD or others/polling

The BoD is not the only election. We suggest elections to the NIC and permanent polling on different issues of interest to the @large users: new services, new gTLDs, etc… according to a polling system also open to market studies and rewards.

7.1.2.organized by who

Using a common system or a common ID for different polling campaign permits to negotiate the polling services and obtain the system for free. This could either be organized by the local@large associations if reliable enough or/and by a private operator. The advantage would be a demonstrated experience before committing NIC and ICANN BoD elections.

7.2. through collective structures

The easiest way to motivate Members is to have them participating into structures (organizations, association, etc…) of their choice either set-up on purpose or granted the quality of @large association.

7.2.1. kind of structures

In order to avoid hijacking and unfair practice, the participation of several structures is possible only if an @large ID has been devised and accepted. These structures should accept to have @large Directors, like the ICANN and the NICs, issued from their own @large communities.

7.2.2. organized by who

The standard polling system should be used by them. This would keep people accustomed to its use and disseminate through the internet an @large culture and a sense of common responsibility.

As France@large we conceive our role as to help such an effort and to document the links of the participating sites.

7.3. through common actions/services

There may be initiatives which may take advantage from the @large culture and know how. They should be acknowledged as such and used as a way to motivate Members in joining and staying as Internet “shareholders” as much as “stakeholders”.

7.3.1. kind of common actions

Themes like Linux, specialized TLDs, Digital Divide, legal internet implications, network games, news, mutual support, new products and services, etc. maybe the occasion to propose @large Membership. Agreement should be found with such projects.

7.3.2. organized by who?

local@large associations and NICs can certainly join forces in best common interest. ISPs or large services may want to sponsors some actions. As an example, France@large currently fosters three projects of this kind:

Digital Continuity to fight the international Digital Divide e-humanrights to internationally word the electronic rights and introduce legislations world@wide a documentation database on all the internet @large and governance organizations.

7.4. through the media

The Media are certainly the best partners. Their information may come from the NICs, the national@large associations. A deal must be stroke with them: you talk about us and we keep you informed. That deal should be made in reserving the participating media to an exclusive access to an ICANN/NIC/@large filtered distribution list.

Any @large, ICANN, NIC, TLD, etc… will have the possibility to disseminate quickly a news on that list and the e-mail/telephone number of @large persons able to comment.

7.4.1. who is to campaign the media

This should be a simple repeated proposition to the media by the ICANN, NIC and national@large associations, each at its level. The mechanic of the distribution list could be subcontracted to a press agency specialized in @large issues and capable to complete the information with documentation and archives.

7.4.2. with which election message

The election PR campaign is becomes very simple. The ICANN elections are at regular interval, making them seasonal issues that the media can prepare. The ICANN has only to issue regular information on the preparation, the list of the candidates, the involved issues, the ICANN rules, etc… The nominated candidates will have access to the distribution list to make their site known, organize press conferences, propose files and material, etc.

8. How to organize an @large fair process

The 2000 experience has shown that practical issues had been at the core of the campaign, candidates communicating as much on their own problems as on the ICANN issues. We want here to list some of the points the Study Group should review, either in proposing good and simple responses, or in choosing solutions circumventing them.


8.1. qualification check

The main problem faced by the ICANN has been the identification of the voters through their PIN. This problem should be addressed in carrying the control at the nearest of the Member: through his ISP, his NIC, his TLD.

This can be achieved in devising an @large Member ID format (name, forename, place of birth, date of birth, country of birth) that anyone can prepare and check. These information should only be concatenated in a string and an MD5 + authentication process to be used to make an ID. Only conflicting IDs would be investigated.

This identification should be carried every time a potential @large register a Domain Names, loggin a free access service, sign for an e-mail, etc… A way to keep partners involved would be to publish the number of @large people reported per partner. If it is accepted as a way to measure the number of users of an ISP or of a mail service, the day will be won.

8.2. registration period

The registration period should obviously be permanent. The right to vote is not linked to the registration, but to the use of the Internet. The registration only consist in having an @large ID registered and authenticated by an @large accredited partner.

8.3. membership fee

A symbolic membership fee could be asked to cover the cost of the authentication ID and to check the reality of the given address and information (for example a check of two dollars and a xerox of an ID permits to check the name on the ID). In such a case it should be explained to the Members and how they can use the @large ID in their personal databases for example.

8.4. campaigning rules

The ICANN and other concerned Boards of Directors (NICs, organizations, etc…) should limit their involvement to vote announces, list of nominated candidates, their standardized presentation, links to the candidate sites, publication of relevant documentation, URL of the polling booth, publication of the results.

8.5. control

Control should continue to be carried by specialized institutes and should also be carried by the national@large associations. The Study Group should meet them and organize a documentation to their benefit and on them to the benefit of the candidates, of the press and of the public.

8.6. candidates/voters relations

As requested the relations between the candidates and the voters should be assisted by the information on the candidate sites and mailing list, access of he candidate to the @large mailing list, e-mail reminder sent to all the concerned @large Members. The rest of the relation should be carried by the candidates, according to their own habits and local usages.

The Study Group should therefore check that such a proceeding does not infringe any legal rule in any country and make sure it does not hurt the democratic feeling of any culture.

8.7. practical organization

The described mechanic calls for a very limited involvement at election period, but a constant effort of relations with the media, the national@large associations, the NICs. This certainly ask for one full time person who could be the Study Group hired person.

8.8 polling booth

As described the polling booth is a permanent service for commercial polling adapted to the @large ID and @large geographically wide elections. The Study Group should consider several technical solution which could be called upon. Most probably management rules and voting related information availability, related mailing lists, etc… will depend on the software solution retained for the polling Booth.

9. Politics and education of the Press and of the Public

9.1. government relations

The ICANN and NICs should consider the election process as an internal part of their BGO operations. In allocating limited resources to the process because of a strong automation and of the standardization of the voter/polling booth relations, they leave no margin to adaptations requested locally.

Such adaptations should/would be however possible at the NIC level in different ways which would not compromise the good voting operations.

Governmental influence should therefore be left to the press or the law (campaigning against a foreign candidate, suing an unwanted candidate). These are risks resulting from operating internationally. The election process expert of the Study Group should help defining a standard scenario and simplify it to the maximum transparence: such a transparence is the best self defense of the ICANN.

Such a mechanic should help good relations with Government since the ICANN and foreign involvement should be limited (economic, cultural, human rights influence).

9.2. relations with the NICs

In using the NICs as partner and in having NICs being themselves partners in the process there should be no special difficulty with NICs.

9.3. relations with the TLDs

The TLDs are not concerned, except when they are managed by a community which would be acknowledged as an @large association participating to the @large Members registration process and education. Such a TLD would be informed through usual channel.

Study Group, should investigate which existing TLD could be accepted as such depending on its charter.

9.4.relations with the media

If a daily flow of information has been organized with media, the election process would not require more than documentation update on election process, existing Directors and their achievement, presentations of the new candidates according to a standard format.

The Study Group should determine in detail after meeting with press specialist which kind of information and material should belong to a candidate information kit and to an election documentation, so to established a stable practice giving no unforeseen advantage to any candidate.

10. Cost analysis

The proposed orientation of the Study calls for a real automation and simplification of the whole process based upon tested solutions (cf. infra), limited involvement and local delegation. The result is a low budget, most probably in line with the 2000 budget, but with a permanent policy of relations with the NICs, the media, the national@large associations and sites, etc…

Concerning the Study Group budget, we repeat our initial understanding: the ICANN faces the most important revision of its structure and responsibilities. This study is therefore its first priority. If it cannot foot its cost, the ICANN should close the shop.

10.1 registration @large

Registration should be performed through an ID program using a verified national ID document information. Such an ID being used as an “Internet Customer Number” would be deliver for free. The Study Group should only commission a technical working group to establish its format and program.

10.2 communication

The communication related to the election process and to the @large management should be very standard and part of the ICANN communication policy, calling for no additional cost, being understood that the ICANN will necessarily adapt its structure to the acknowledgement of the @large as an internal part.

10.3 communication @large

It is expected that the @large community will be well structured while extremely diversified so information will be easily disseminated and commented. The real need is for a basic reference: the current icann.org site has proven to be a good solution. The site will however need to support a far larger number of access, in proportion to the @large population and its needs.

10.4. polling booth

The Study will probably determine that it could delegate the whole process to a commercial venture. We object to that and defend the idea that such a proposition could be jointly made by the national@large associations using their own staff, solutions and partners. The Study Group should give them the opportunity to establish themselves and then to demonstrate their ability of carrying that task before committing to any final decision

11. Schedule of the study

We have no special concern at the beginning of his study as its impact may be such that its successive review may request adaptation of the schedule. We certainly disapprove the way some Directors stayed at on the Board. But we acknowledge that hey probably represent some concerns of the @large community. Their presence on the Board is therefore a lesser disadvantage than not reaching a consensus.

11.1 research of a consensus : questionnaire to BoD + Staff + former Dierectors

We think that the Study Group should foresee at some stage to post a questionnaire to the ICANN “stakeholders”, i.e. the Board and former Board Members and Staff. And to take advantage form this experience.

11.2.preparation of a working document

Budget, time and public rumor will probably not leave a lot of time and possibilities to the Study Group. So we strongly advocate to have an advisory group set-up in addition to the guests participating to its working Mailing List which may be used to test parts of working documents at different stages. This would permit an audit, favor a consensus process and respond to the transparency obligation of the ICANN.

Such review should occur before every ICANN meeting so the Study Group Members could be met there by the interested persons.

11.3. polling booth for test period

The Study Group could issue several polling during the process of his study and use different polling booth to do so. Part of the polling would be to evaluate the used polling booth. The results should be published to permit the suggestion of technical improvement or alternative solution for the next poll.

12.proposed model

12.1 premises

This model conforms to the prevailing common usage in bottom up international organizations. It is based upon the acknowledgment of:

  • the existence of national community partnerships (NCP) made of:
  • the local internet community including:
  • every Internet user, mostly interested in a proper equal access service.
  • the @large Members: domain name owners, private TLDs, content providers, ISPs, etc… and common internet users wanting to involve themselves into the management of their interests within the Internet system itself. .
  • the NIC (to stay with the common terminology) which performs common interest tasks to the benefit of the local internet community: IP addresses, ccTLD management, ISP association, user education, relations with the other NICs, cooperation or support of national specialized internet associations, media, etc…
  • the Government
  • two types of complementary concerns within these communities:
  • @large oriented concerns for the defense of the individual user interests

netwide oriented concerns interested in general operations and network wide issues.

12.2 NIC local coordination

In such a model the “NIC“ is the key bottom element. It will result from the existing NICs taking into account the existence and the rights of the @large within the local internet community. According to this model and the Best Practices voted by ccTLDs (MDR 2000). The NIC will:

  • help developing the @large constituency as part of the local community.
  • operate the local ccTLD and participate to the root galaxy
  • register the local/specialized TLDs
  • help organizing a non partisan @large support like France@large
  • represent the ISPs and operators
  • cooperate with the ISOC
  • support local netwide concerns and R&D

The NIC will be administered by existing Directors and by @large elect Directors.

This model obviously calls for an USNIC to be set-up independently from the ICANN (and from NSI).

11.3 This model understands the ICANN as : as:

  • a non profit association of the NICS established under a national law allowing most of the applying rules to be defined by its statutes.
  • administered by a Board of Directors with equal representation of netwide (indirectly elected through exiting three support organizations) and @large interests (directly elected by Members) plus Staff.
  • supported by Advisory Committees: Governments, Telcos, Internet Technical bodies.
  • served by a permanent Staff cooperating with NICs to insure netwide management within specialized Working Groups such as:
  • SSRAC for the root galaxy management
  • IANA for the documentation and administrative relations with the NICs
  • @large Delegation for the administrative relations of the @large community

etc…

12.4 the @large organization

The @large concept needs direct elections of all the Directors but the @large organization will broadly result from the BoD candidacy nominations.

  • there would be no limitation in the number of nominated candidates
  • there should be a limited number of nominating organizations: NIC, NGO, Governments

There could also be several elections for different types of representations (geographical area, user representation, Telcos, etc..) so the different main @large constituents are represented.

The organization of the @large local constituency should be handled with the local NIC who also get some Directors elected at the same time.

We have no objection to a small participation fee:

  • covering and participating to the verification of the identity – one PIN per Member
  • helping the translation of information on ICANN life
  • participating to the Polling/Voting Booth

We would accept and accept this cost to be (partly) waived due to sponsoring. Adhesion to the @large voting system will be permitted all the year long.

An international @large ID will be made of the ccTLD of the registering NIC, the country of birth, the place of birth, the birth date, the name and forename. An inter-NIC check will be run before accepting a member. Members will be allowed to register in the country of their choice.

The Polling/Voting Booth will be contracted externally. The @large national sites will organize a permanent self paid polling service get the @large Members constantly active and informed (motions, propositions, rewards, etc…). If this service turns to be stable and secure it will be used for ICANN votes.

Récupérée de « http://www.franceatlarge.org/wiki/Response_to_the_call_for_public_inputs_concerning_the_%40large_study »
Outils personnels