ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    Membership Issues At Large Study Committee report released
    posted by jon on Wednesday November 07 2001, @10:13AM

    There weren't a lot of surprises in the At Large Study Committee final report; it hewed remarkably closely to the draft the committee had issued for public comment back in August. That draft, as you remember, recommended that voting for At-Large Directors be limited to domain name holders paying a membership fee, and that the at-large membership should elect six directors, rather than nine. Here's a rundown on the changes in the committee's recommendations over the past 2 ½ months:



    * The draft had recommended that each domain name registration get a new contact, called the "At Large Membership contact," who would cast the ICANN election vote. The final report jettisoned that, stating that the voter should be the admin contact. This may have been an incomplete response to the concern that a corporation holding many domain names would be able to give each name a different membership contact, and thus cast large numbers of election votes. (Under the new proposal, a corporation wishing to do that has to give its various domain names different admin contacts.)

    * The draft had indicated that registrars should collect the ICANN At-Large Membership fee, and remit it to a central collecting body. That suggestion has disappeared from the final report.

    * The draft had justified its proposal that the At-Large get only six seats on the Board by asserting that the best foundation for consensus is by "organizing ICANN along functional lines of developers, providers and users," and giving the at-large membership the right to select the "user" third of the Board. The final report backed away hard from the idea that this functional division should be seen as relevant to ICANN's existing structure outside the At-Large, or could be used as support for changing the allocation of non-At-Large Board seats (beyond the need to increase the number of those seats from nine to twelve). The committee recognized that if one takes the three-way division seriously, it opens up a tremendous can of worms regarding ICANN structure generally. But if one doesn't take it seriously, on the other hand, what's the justification for six rather than some other number?

    * The final report recognizes the existence of ccTLDs, as the draft did not: It suggests that ccTLD registrants should get to vote too, so long as "the ccTLD registry agrees to comply with the ALSO verification and marketing procedures."

    * The draft had proposed six geographical regions, rather than five; it did that by dividing the Asia/Pacific region into an East Asia/Pacific region and a Central/West/South Asia region consisting almost entirely of Muslim countries (plus India and Israel). The final report defends that division, but states a fallback position: "if creation of a new region threatens to significantly delay At-Large implementation," an alternative would be to elect two Asia/Pacific directors from different countries.

    * The final report supports a requirement, absent from the draft, that once the new structure is set up, "a supermajority [should] be required for changes to ICANN's bylaws affecting the At-Large structure."

    * The final report suggests that maybe, someday, the committee might be able to think of an additional mechanism, other than domain-name ownership, that would allow individuals who can't afford domain names to vote in the At-Large electorate.

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • ICANNWatch.org
  • a tremendous can of worms
  • At Large Study Committee final report
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    At Large Study Committee report released | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 1 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com