An Overview of At-Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC) and Its Progress

1. An Overview of At-Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC) and Its Progress ALSC Outreach for APTLD-APNIC Meetings in Taiwan Taipei, August 26, 2001 Ching-Yi Liu, ALSC Member; Supervisor, TWNIC; Assistant Professor of Law, National Central University, Taiwan www.atlargestudy.org

2. Overview • Introduction to the ALSC • Methodology and Strategy • Activities • Your Role • Most Important: Questions and Answers

3. Genesis of ALSC • Interim At-Large solution adopted by ICANN Board: • Direct election of 5 Directors by Self-Selected At-Large Members • Comprehensive study of how to appropriately provide for input/influence into ICANN by individual Internet users

4. Creation of ALSC • January – ICANN Board approved ALSC Charter; appointed Carl Bildt Chair, Pindar Wong, Chuck Costello Vice Chairs; Denise Michel retained as Executive Director • March - Board ratified 6 Members: Pierre Dandjinou, Esther Dyson, Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu, Thomas Niles, Oscar Robles

5. ALSC Members

6. Goal • Forge a broad consensus on an appropriate and effective means by which individual Internet users worldwide may participate in ICANN's activities and decisions. • This includes both how they can give input to ICANN (directly or through representatives), and how that input should affect ICANN's overall decision-making processes. • Final recommendations to ICANN’s Board in November.

7. Methodology • Fulfill our Charter • Sets forth what we are to do: Initial set of responsibilities (scope of study, participation, and deliverables) • Study (and encourage studies of) At-Large Issues • Study the Concept, Structure and Process relating to an ‘at Large’ membership for ICANN (Article II, Sec. 5 of ICANN Bylaws) • Conduct Outreach • Seek and encourage input from all interested parties • Build Consensus and Propose Recommendations

8. What we need to address (Charter questions) • Should the ICANN Board include At-Large Directors? • If so, how many such At-Large Directors should there be? • How should any such At-Large Directors be selected? • If selection by an At-Large membership is recommended, what processes and procedures should be used to create that At-Large membership? What minimum criteria, if any, should be required for membership? • If an At-Large membership is to exist, what should its structure, role and functions be? How should it be funded? • Note: Committee works without preconception as to a preferred outcome. Previous decisions and conclusions regarding an “At Large” membership will be informative but not determinative.

9. Strategy • Listen, encourage ideas/studies, and generate agreement • Initial focus on participation of organizations/individuals worldwide, the development of independent studies/analyses • Long-term focus on distributing draft proposals/concept papers, and generating consensus • Recommend Feasible At Large Proposal for the Board to Consider

10. Activities • Sharing information online • Email primary mechanism for input • ALSC website (www.atlargestudy.org) • Major Outreach meetings • March, Melbourne • June, Stockholm • August, Silicon Valley • September, Montevideo • Outreach events • 10+ events worldwide (like this one) • Working meetings/teleconferences • internal meetings to plan efforts, develop paper, draft and reports

11. Schedule • Discussions, consensus generation through September • Draft report for public comment due by September 9 • Final report to ICANN Board by November 14 • schedule must conclude with an ICANN Board decision that can be fully implemented, as required by the current bylaws, no later than the ICANN Annual Meeting in 2002

12. What we have done so far • ALSC creation (charter, members, prep meeting in February) • Initial budget/schedule approved by ICANN Board in March • Aggregate At-Large election data posted on our website • Outreach • emails to At-Large list, ICANN’s list, etc. (5000+) • website established: www.atlargestudy.org • 300+ email comments received (on-line forum to start soon) • Melbourne outreach meeting with 60+ participants • Outreach events in Kuala Lumpur, Taipei, San Francisco and other places in North America, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. • Release Option Template and Discussion Paper #1 • Draft Report Coming Soon

13. Discussion Paper #1 Release in mid-July for Comments • Purpose • Our Initial Conclusion: Individuals Need a Voice in ICANN • The Process • Concept Paper and Draft Reprt to Follow

14. Preliminary Views Presented in Discussion Paper #1 • ICANN’s mission of acting in public interest and balancing commercial and institutional interests • ICANN should operate in a manner that is stable, accountable, transparent, and predictable • Increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance • Engender knowledge within, and support from, interested communities • Inject the necessary public interest perspectives into coordination of relevant ICANN issues • Encourage both the “non-technical” and “technical” communities to explain their concerns and the impact of their work more effectively to the broader public

15. The goals to Reconfigure Board Membership • Fulfill ICANN’s commitment to greater accountability of the Board of Directors • Ensure “users’ voices” are represented in ICANN’s decisions • Represent the diverse interests of those affected by ICANN decisions • Select high-quality Board members capable of understanding and fulfilling ICANN’s responsibilities • Avoid “capture” of the Board through disproportionate and opaque representation of any one organization or interest group or community • Ensure the Board Members work together effectively to fulfill its responsibilities

16. More Input Needed • The role and function of Sos? • the level of participation and activity in ICANN’s existing communities? • conflict-of-interest provisions for Sos? • The process and consensus within Sos? • The role of voluntary participation and the role of secretarial work and ICANN staff? • Organizing existing or potential constituencies into Sos? • The encourage of self-organization of individuals? • Each entitie’s role, authority, and funding source? • What (if any) specific consensus development processes should be recommended? • The allocation of board seats? • More ?

17. Your role • Share your personal views • check “www.atlargestudy.org” periodically for questions and issues on which we need your input • send us emails -- comments@atlargestudy.org • participate in our on-line forum • attend ALSC outreach meetings or events (see calendar at www.atlargestudy.org) • Share your institutional and regional views -- what do the AP people and organizations think of the At-Large issues? • We are here to Listen to your voices.

18. Further Information http://www.atlargestudy.org or email to: comments@atlargestudy.org