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

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
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 Cyber-Federalists' Noble Effort to Preserve End-User Voices in ICANN
    posted by michael on Friday October 25 2002, @01:19PM

    Cyber-federalist 15 is hot off the press from Hans Klein. His thoughts are distributed by the Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc) and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) joint Internet Democracy Project. No. 15 concerns the Project's (highly optimistic?) attempt to preserve the users' voice in ICANN deliberations via ICANNatlarge.org.

    Noble effort. Doomed to irrelevance? Given that one of the major objectives of the current 'reform' plan is to eradicate any trace of end-user power in the ICANN structure (the latest move being to insert the GAC between end-users and ICANN even on at-large advisory committees!), one has to wonder why on earth ICANN will do more than nod politely and go on its way when civil society groups address it. Especially when ICANN will have its tame "company union" as Klein aptly calls it, which will undoubtedly tell ICANN that users accept what the Board wants to hear....

    Here's the text of Cyberfederalist #15:

    The User Voice in Internet Governance -- ICANNatlarge.org

    ICANN has been a bold experiment in many areas, not least of which is giving users a role in Internet policy-making. However, user representation on ICANN's board has been vigorously contested, and ICANN's current board seems likely to eliminate it. Nonetheless, even if users are excluded from ICANN, their collective voice will persist.

    Today, the collective voice of the user in ICANN exists in the organization named ICANNatlarge.org. ICANNatlarge.org (http://www.ICANNatlarge.org) is a mass membership organization founded in early 2002 to unite users in Internet governance, most notably in ICANN. With over 1000 members, a web site and mailing lists, and an elected governing panel, ICANNatlarge.org provides a framework for continued user participation in policy making.

    The creation of an institutional framework for users is important. ICANNatlarge.org demonstrates that a global user community really exists, and it gives that community a vehicle by which to express its views and its interests. It facilitates the difficult tasks of creating a general forum, aggregating interests for users from around the world, and developing a collective voice. With members from over 72 countries, the organization possesses a legitimacy that a closed, top-down organization cannot. It is global, participatory, and transparent.

    At the ICANN meeting in Shanghai, ICANNatlarge.org has organized a users forum. This event will be a focal point for users, civil society groups, At Large Directors (before their positions are eliminated), and other stakeholders to meet and to coordinate their activities around the board meeting.

    At this meeting ICANNatlarge.org will not offer any statements on behalf of all users. That seems an unlikely role for such an inclusive organization that hosts such a diversity of views. Rather, ICANNatlarge.org will serve as a forum within which groups can articulate their own views. The organization's role may be more to facilitate than to lead.

    Three Voices of Users
    Over the past years three types of organizations have emerged to speak for users in ICANN. The first is the individual NGO. NGOs (including university-based researchers) are able to offer strongly-worded analysis and recommendations in ICANN. With a basis in a few experts and without the need to gain approval from a large membership, NGOs can engage in decisive action.

    The second type of organization claiming to speak for users is a top-down entity, much like a company union. As ICANN eliminates user representation from its board, it is likely to create a compliant user organization. The board will soon decide whether to create an "At Large Advisory Committee" (ALAC) to replace the nine At Large Directors. Much like a company union, the ALAC will represent those user views that are acceptable to the board.

    The third type of organization is ICANNatlarge.org. It is open and inclusive, but unlike the company union model it will not conform to externally-imposed parameters. Although more likely to serve as a forum than as a united voice, it can facilitate the process whereby users work out a collective voice.

    Culmination of Effort
    ICANNatlarge.org is the latest step in a series of efforts. The first effort to create a united users voice was at ICANN's 2000 meeting in Yokohama, where user representatives launched the Civil Society Internet Forum (www.CSIF.net). The CSIF played an important role in publicizing a collective "Civil Society Platform" for the 2000 elections. Nearly all elected At Large Directors in year 2000 supported that platform. However, the initial enthusiasm of the organizers led them to diffuse their energies to all global issues. As its focus expanded to issues like privacy law in various countries, its attention to ICANN declined.

    A second attempt at a users organization was ICANNmembers.org, which was led by the Interim Coordinating Committee (ICC). That organization made its appearance at the ICANN Annual Meeting in Marina del Rey in October 2000. The ICC brought together many of the leading candidates from the At Large elections. However, it lost momentum as many of its members dedicated their energies to the NGO and Academic Internet Study (NAIS).

    A third attempt to create a user voice in 2002 was more along the lines of a company union. Some participants of the ICANN-commissioned At Large Study Committee (ALSC, led by Sweden's Karl Bildt) attempted to launch a new user organization called "ICANNatlarge.com." This top-down effort failed to assemble a compliant membership, and eventually the founders left to start a new effort. ICANNatlarge.com evolved into today's ICANNatlarge.org.

    ICANNatlarge.org is an authentic bottom-up organization. It is still solidifying its internal organization and finalizing a mission statement and bylaws. It is also improving its ability to make closure on discussions and to reach collective decisions. At Shanghai it is proving its ability to serve a vital purpose: to host a general users forum. It makes the voice of the user a reality.

    [Note: the author currently serves as "Acting Chair" of ICANNatlarge.org. However, the views expressed here are solely his own.]


    CYBER-FEDERALIST is a series of analyses and commentaries on Internet governance and ICANN produced by the Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc) of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR).

    http://www.cyber-federalist.org (archive)

    The author of the CYBER-FEDERALIST is Hans Klein.

    Subscribe to the CYBER-FEDERALIST!
    Send an Email to: cyber-federalist-subscribe@cpsr.org

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ 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  
  • GAC
  • cyber-federalist-subscribe@cps r.org
  • Civil Society Democracy Project
  • Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
  • Internet Democracy Project
  • to insert the GAC between end-users and ICANN even on at-large advisory committees
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Cyber-Federalists' Noble Effort to Preserve End-User Voices in ICANN | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 4 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    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.
    Re: Cyber-Federalists' Noble Effort to Preserve En
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Saturday October 26 2002, @05:22AM (#9848)
    User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
    That's how I read the following:
    II. Expert Advisory Panels

    Section 7 of the Blueprint endorsed the use within the ICANN policy-development process of Expert Advisory Panels as sources of independent expert advice on particular public policy matters that may arise. The New Bylaws recommended in the ERC’s "final" implementation report take only a first step in realizing the potential of expert input, addressing use of outside advisors in a partial way in item 10(b) of Annex A (with respect to development of policies within the GNSO). In continuing its efforts to fully implement Section 7 of the Blueprint, the ERC recognizes the benefits of establishing relationships with Expert Advisory Panels, through appropriate mechanisms within the ICANN structure, particularly those institutionally coordinated within specialized organizations, including by encouraging constructive participation by relevant multinational governmental and treaty organizations.

    In the cases where advice is sought concerning matters of public policy from Expert Advisory Panels drawn from relevant multinational governmental and treaty organizations, the ERC believes that the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) is the appropriate body to facilitate arrangements for such assistance. The GAC is the body chartered to advise ICANN on the concerns of governments, under whose auspices multinational governmental and treaty organizations operate. It is important that the scope and means of interaction between ICANN and those organizations be institutionalized in a manner that is satisfactory to governments, matching up governmental or treaty organizations with areas of expertise relevant to pertinent public policy considerations within ICANN's mission. Thus, the establishment of appropriate arrangements, including definition of scope and process, for obtaining advice from such organizations should be done in consultation with the GAC.

    Advice received from Expert Advisory Panels should be advisory and not binding, and intended to augment the record available to the Board or policy-development bodies as appropriate.

    Section 1 of Article XI-A of the proposed New Bylaws covers these concepts.

    I'd be happy to have it explained to me that I misunderstood....
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 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