ALAC:Self Assessment and Next Steps

2006/11/01 @ 13:07:51 UTC

Introduction

To retain its Internet technical coordination role, ICANN must clearly demonstrate that its policies protect the interests of all stakeholders, particulary the interests of the Internet users. Strong, direct ICANN participation by a conspicuous number of active Internet users would ensure that ICANN managed resources are not controlled by the specific interests of any country, company, or constituency. ICANN depends on a strong ALAC to provide this representation.

While we are pleased that ALAC is becoming a more established and respected stakeholder within ICANN, we have identified several key areas in which ALAC needs to grow stronger. The following self review and resolutions seek to buttress ALAC's impact by improving ALAC internal processes and strengthening ALAC interfaces to constituents and the rest of ICANN.

Charter

See ALAC's Charter for the exact wording of the ICANN bylaws that pertain to ALAC.

The Interim ALAC has been given the following two primary responsibilities:

• Organize five Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) to serve as the main forum and coordination point for public input to ICANN in their respective Geographic Regions. This includes certifying organizations as meeting the criteria and standards for At-Large Structures. These RALOs will eventually select 10 members of the ALAC while the remaining 5 will be selected by the Nominating Committee.
• Consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users.

While the Committee is in general consensus that both are important ALAC functions, members disagree as to the precedence between them. Some members believe that the primary function of the Interim ALAC is to certify ALSs and help them to form RALOs, in order to assure minimun levels of representativity and legitimacy; others believe that the policy analysis and advisory functions are equally or more important. This tension is reflected in the members' self-assessment of their work over the past three years, and in their assessment of the ALAC structure's suitability as a mechanism for user representation in ICANN.

Despite differences in prioritization, the committee recognizes the following:

• Policy recommendations are only as strong as they are representative;
• RALOs are one way of gathering and representing public support;
• Indirect representation is also a legitimate way of documenting public support --- ALAC members selected by the Board and NomCom are intended to represent a fair cross-section of the Internet community at large;
• "Participatory" and "Representative" are not necessarily equivalents;
• Forming RALOs is to a large extent administrative, requires staff and finances, and places significant time demands on members.

Resolved

Committee members will work predominantly on the activities they feel are most important, so long as their ultimate goal is to bring the public interest of the individual Internet user to bear on ICANN policy.

• The efforts of those who are forming RALOs in their regions will be supported through full participation in votes and other essential actions that require the attention of the entire committee.
• As indirect representatives of the public, members may express their own opinions on policy issues so long as they clearly differentiate between individual opinions and views that have been adopted by the committee as a whole.
• The efforts of those who are drafting policy documents will be supported through full participation in votes and other essential actions that require the attention of the entire committee.
• In situations where alternatives to RALOs and indirect representation provide valuable public feedback on matters of ICANN policy, ALAC members will pursue such methods as polling, public outreach, and compilation of public opinions expressed in other fora.
• We recognize that the "interim" status of the Committee cannot continue forever, and will have to be concluded in a reasonable period of time, either by establishing the RALOs or by adopting a different model.

Structure

See the At-Large Infrastructure Formation Proposals for the exact wording of the requirements for ALS and RALO formation. The At-Large Infrastructure Formation Proposals are an ALAC recommendation that was accepted by the ICANN Board.

There is considerable freedom of implementation within the ICANN bylaws and the At-Large Infrastructure Formation Proposals. Each RALO must include a minimum of 3 open and transparent At-Large Structures based in at least 2 different countries within the RALO's Geographic Region. If so provided by its Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN, a RALO may also have as its members individual Internet users who are citizens and residents of the RALO's Geographic Region.

Since the board must review and accept a memorandum of understanding for each RALO, the requirements are kept to a minimum so that each RALO has the freedom to create the type of structure that best fits its Geographic Region's customs and characteristics.

Resolved

The ALAC will create an ABCs of RALO Formation" page that provides RALO formation guidelines and shares best practices as they are developed. The "ABC's of RALO Formation" document will feature a menu of structure options, and how they could work. The creation of the "ABC's" document is delegated to a working group composed of all ALAC members and ALAC constituents who want to be involved.

Focus Outward and Effectively Use Volunteers

Some critics focus on improving the ALAC's current work: "When I was in Luxembourg, I found ALAC to be too focused on itself, and lacking in terms of outreach to the ICANN community. I'd have preferred to see ALAC be part of the policy discussions that go on, and I think that still happens too little." It is worth noting that recent activities such as the workshop on new gTLDs, the WSIS initiative, and particularly the NTIA Statement show a legitimate effort to get more involved in policy activities and to devote less time to discussing the ALAC's internal challenges.

Resolved

The ALAC will delegate open issues to working groups composed of all interested ALAC members and constituents. The working groups will draft policy documents in an open and transparent fashion on ICANNWIKI. Policy documents that gain the consensus of the committee (at least 80% of 10 members at YES for 5 days) will be published on the ICANNALAC website and submitted to ICANN as official ALAC position papers. ALAC representatives are encouraged to directly solicit the ALAC constituent participation in the drafting of policy documents.

The ALAC will make more effective use of staff support, by implementing an issue tracking system with clear deadlines. The issue tracker will provide a reference that can be used to encourage both staff and committee members to keep things moving forward.

Budget

In March 2006 the ALAC formed a budget committee that for the first time worked with the ICANN ALAC Director to develop an ALAC budget tied to specific strategic goals and activities for the next fiscal year. Unfortunately, delays in the ICANN budgeting process made it difficult for ALAC to initiate its work for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. ALAC work in 2006-2007 has been further encumbered by difficulties in obtaining expenditure reports from ICANN.

Resolved

ALAC will continue to delegate the budget issue to a working group composed of a few ALAC Committee members and the ALAC Executive Director. Any interested ALAC Committee member or constituent may submit a proposal to the budget working group. The final budget proposal must be approved by the full ALAC Committee.

The budget committee will work with ICANN staff to clarify what parts of the submitted budget proposal have been approved for the fiscal period under consdieration and procedures for accessing the funds. Furthermore, the budget committee will ask for detailed reports of actual expenses from previous fiscal periods.

Two way dialog

Several on the ALAC feel that their comments to the Board regarding the interests of individual Internet users are a one-way conversation. ALAC calls for public comment on ICANN policies, gathers the comments and additional research into end-user interests, and submits reports to the Board incorporating the public comments. When submitting comments, ALAC would like to engage in dialogue with the Board to understand whether the interests of individual users are being heard or whether the ALAC comments could be revised to address questions and criticisms from other sources.

Resolved

The ALAC will install a tracking/ticketing tool to keep track of ALAC activities and deadlines, like for instance election dates, progress on budgets, other policy milestone dates, etc. The ticket tool will also be used to track our communications to the Board and other groups and to follow their responses. The proposal for the creation of the ticketing tool is delegated to a working group composed of all ALAC members and ALAC constituents who want to be involved.

Direct Representation

In its role as the voice of the individual Internet users, ALAC firmly believes that the current multiparty framework at ICANN should be further strengthened to allow more proactive involvement of individual Internet users. Currently, the advisory role of ALAC does not give individual users direct decision-making power in ICANN's Internet management. Some members also feel it does not provide effective representation or participation for individual Internet users, however others believe that the RALO building process, when complete, will address the concerns re representation.

Resolved

• We believe that ICANN should find ways to implement enhanced representation of individual users at the decision-making levels of ICANN so that a real multi-stakeholder framework is achieved.

• Accordingly, we are drafting a recommendation for more direct involvement of individual Internet users at the decision-making levels of ICANN. The drafting of this recommendation is delegated to a working group composed of all ALAC members and ALAC constituents who want to be involved.

• In the meantime, ALAC will continue to strengthen the voice of the At-Large Community by (1) working on RALO formation and (2) collecting, collating and transmitting public expressions of opinion on ICANN policy.

Participation Accountability

ALAC members that don't participate in the work of the committee are a burden on the members who do participate.

Resolved

With the understanding that it is better to have vacancies than to have non-participating "zombie" members on the committee, these guidelines provide a mechanism to remove ALAC members if they fail to meet a minimum level of activity.

Committee members are expected to actively participate in all aspects of the committee's work. This includes:

1. Reading and commenting in the ALAC online forums
2. Following the ALS certification process and voting in all ALS votes (abstentions count as a vote)
3. Participating in at least 2/3 of the ALAC conference calls in any 6 month period
4. Attending at least one physical ALAC meeting in any 9 month period
5. Serving as a liaison to the public

These guidelines will be added to the ALAC application for reference by applicants and the nominating committee.

Given that ICANN Bylaws do not currently allow for automatic removal of an ALAC member, the committee Chair (autonomously or on request of other members) will verify whether the requirements mentioned above are met. If a member fails to meet the requirements, the Chair will privately encourage him/her to resign. If this does not happen promptly, the Chair will formally notify the entity responsible for appointing the member, and ask that the appointment is immediately reconsidered.

ALAC Achievements

When the ALAC started its work, the At-Large was a shattered constituency, deeply and bitterly divided by the assessment of the cancellation of the previous At-Large effort of year 2000. During these first years, the ALAC succeeded in establishing the At-Large as one of the players on the ICANN map, turning it from a residual group of weird individuals who most constituencies wouldn't even bother to meet, to an appreciated contributor to policy making processes and to the global discussion on Internet governance, both inside and outside ICANN.

The ALAC focused its work during the last years in two major areas: 1) Advocacy for individual Internet users? interest in ICANN?s policy development and decision making process, and 2) Outreach activities in different regions throughout the world, informing the public about ICANN and At-Large and identifying those organizations that are eligible to be part of Regional At-Large Organizations. We refer to these areas as "Policy" and "Outreach", respectively.

ALAC Outreach Efforts

In the past years, we have succeeded in accrediting a significant number of At-Large Structures (ALSs) from the different ICANN Regions. Since the ALAC began accepting applications 3 years ago, (as of 5 October 2006) 52 organizations have been certified as At-Large Structures, and 73 organizations have applied for "At-Large Structure certification" (the 21 not approved ones include applications that were withdrawn, rejected, or are still under examination). By ICANN Region, there now are 8 accredited ALSes in Africa, 13 in Asia/Pacific, 16 in Europe, 8 in Latin America and 7 in North America, covering 31 different countries and territories. Even with all the difficulties described in the rest of the document, these membership figures are similar to, or exceed, several ICANN constituencies.

The ALS accreditation process has been sometimes challenged due to its slowness and lack of predictable schedules; over time, the procedure has been refined and changed (including one edit to the ICANN Bylaws) to make it more effective, but it still heavily depends on the availability of volunteer time by ALAC members. It is getting increasingly difficult to cope with the growing flow of incoming applications; further changes, including a greater allocation of ICANN staff in managing and reviewing applications, may be necessary.

It is worth noting that so far, 17 of the 52 certified ALSs are chapters of the Internet Society. Some participants in the ICANN process, as well as some key participants in ISOC, have shown concern regarding this fact. However, we feel that it is natural for many chapters of ISOC around the world to get involved in ICANN's policy development process, as it represents an important opportunity to actively contribute to the development of the Internet.

While we are pleased to count many ISOC chapters as active participants in At-Large, we also acknowledge the importance of other types of user groups in At-Large including professional societies, consumer groups, community networking groups, etc. After the World Summit on Information Society, many diverse groups from the communication rights and global NGOs environment joined the At-Large. These types of groups also are a growing element of ICANN At-Large, and are important representatives of their communities.

In four of the five ICANN Regions, efforts to build the Regional At-Large Organizations are well under way, and in some cases nearing completion. A number of meetings among the accredited ALSes and other interested individuals have been held, and drafts of Bylaws and other internal documents are being circulated and agreed in most Regions.

ALAC outreach efforts not only apply to the accreditation and certification process, but also to communicating to the "outside world" At-Large's involvement in ICANN's DNS policy development process. In many countries, particularly in those less developed, the existence of ICANN is either unknown or ignored, and the possibilities of ICANN participation are minimal.

ALAC members have successfully undertaken a variety of outreach efforts, such as Tommy Matsumoto's work in the APNG Camp, Bret Fausett's blog, Erick Iriarte's contributions to the Alfa-Redi newsletter and outreach program, and Vittorio Bertola's and Izumi Aizu's work in the WSIS process, just to name a few. The ALAC was the first constituency to organize WSIS workshops at ICANN meetings, and significantly contributed in bridging differences between the original business environment of ICANN and the diplomatic and activist circles of WSIS.

At-Large outreach and organizing activities also have been advanced through international and regional ALAC-sponsored workshops and meetings. ICANN has supported At-Large events in Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Luxembourg, Germany, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Korea, Ghana, Japan, Venezuela, Taiwan, and the Dominican Republic.

At-Large websites, forums, a 6500+ email announce list, and monthly newsletters are used to share information about At-Large efforts and educate the general user community on why, and how, to become involved in ICANN At-Large. Interested and qualified groups are encouraged to complete and submit to the ALAC a short application form (the form and supporting information is available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, and Chinese). Organizations involved in, or interested in becoming involved in, ICANN At-Large include community networking groups, professional societies, consumer advocacy groups, and academic organizations. To further promote outreach and effectiveness, ALAC members established and maintain their own website at http://icannalac.org/.

Policy work

To actively promote individual user community interests within ICANN, At-Large representatives are serving (or have served) as liaisons or members in the following ICANN policy-related groups: ICANN Board; GNSO Council; Transfers Assistance Group (an ICANN policy implementation task force); WIPO II Working Group; Redemption Grace Period Technical Steering Groups; multiple GNSO Whois Task Forces; GNSO's New gTLD Committees; GNSO Committee on the Introduction of Registry Services; the President's Advisory Committee on Internationalized Domain Names; ICANN's Meeting Coordination Committee; and the (informal) WSIS Working Group.

The ALAC has participated directly in ICANN Policy Development Task Forces and/or has provided ICANN with formal policy recommendations and individual Internet user perspectives on numerous issues, including: the sTLD RFP and introduction of top level domain names; the .NET registry contract and the selection of a new .NET registry; VeriSign Registry's re-direction of queries for non-existent domain names; ICANN policy on registry service changes; numerous WHOIS policy issues; Internationalized Domain Name implementation; the Transfers Assistance Group; WIPO-2 review and recommendations; transparency and public accessibility of ICANN meetings and budget; and the World Summit on the Information Society and related issues.

Ongoing Dissatisfaction

Without a strong vehicle for communication of end-user interests to ICANN, the ALAC faces a chicken-and-egg problem to gaining individuals' participation: End-users have little incentive to participate in a complex construction of structures and bureaucracies if they do not see where they will have an impact on ICANN decisions. Currently, ALAC can send liaisons to the GNSO Council and to its Task Forces, but cannot vote in those policy-development processes. Likewise, ALAC can and does call for public comment on ICANN policies, gather those comments and additional research into end-user interests, and submit reports to the Board incorporating the public comment, but has no clear indication that those reports make a difference. As a result, some on the ALAC feel that their comments to the Board regarding the interests of individual Internet users are a one-way conversation. Often ALAC submits comments without getting the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the Board to understand whether the interests of individual users are being heard or whether the ALAC comments could be revised to address questions and criticisms from other sources.

Faced with what they believe is little evidence of ALAC impact and constricted input channels, some members have found it challenging to recruit Internet users to participate in structure-formation. In North America, for example, although the region has many already-established public interest groups that address Internet-related issues for Internet users, almost none has felt that applying for recognition as an ALS is worth the effort. The recruitment pitch is not compelling: "Form a structure (or apply for recognition of an existing structure) in order jointly to form another structure, which will have the power to select two members to a committee whose chief power is to select members of a nominating committee that, finally, selects eight of 15 members of the ICANN Board." The layered indirection might not be fatal if some of the intermediate steps were also meaningful, but existing ICANN process does little to make that so.

Conclusion

ALAC members thank Brandon CS Sanders of ICANNWIKI for help in using Internet-based tools to develop this document. Naturally, as the public Internet users do not speak with one voice, neither do the ALAC members. Nonetheless, we share an interest in bringing that diverse set of voices and concerns to bear on ICANN policy development.

ALAC members think that their Committee, notwithstanding the difficulty and ineffectiveness connected with volunteer activities, constitutes the most significant and broadest element of outreach and participation in ICANN by the outside world, and specifically Internet users and their organizations. While the structure still needs to be finalized and participation still needs to grow significantly, the practical results reached by ALAC can be ranked (according to the different points of view of its members) from mediocre to excellent.

At the same time, the actual influence of the general public over the decisions and activities of ICANN is still quite limited. It must be ensured that ICANN always acts in the global public interest; the concept, implementation and further empowerment of the At-Large constituency is a precondition for this to happen.

For these reasons, ALAC members request that ICANN promptly initiate the external review of ALAC to evaluate our performance, and the suitability of the ALAC structure, for those critical functions.