Question: If you're elected, you'll represent over 10,000 members from North America. What specific things will you do to communicate with them and discern their views? How much time have you set aside to work with your constituents (as separate from participation in the ICANN meetings)?

Nominee Replies

Barbara Simons - posted on 2000-09-24 22:03:46 If I am elected, I shall represent all the potential at large members in North America, not just those who knew about the registration before the deadline and succeeded in registering. Communicating with large numbers of people is time and energy consuming, especially when there is no support structure in place. Nonetheless, I would consider such communications to be one of my primary responsibilities as a Board member. If elected, I shall establish a discussion forum on which I shall post information about activities and upcoming decisions of the Board, solicit input from the community, and attempt to determine the needs and concerns of the membership. I shall also be available via email. (I was the first ACM President to establish the userid president@acm.org so that members could reach me easily). I have the unusual advantage of being able to devote full time to the job of being a member of the ICANN Board. Not only am I beholden to no individual or organization, but also I shall have the time to maintain communications with members and to be well informed about the issues. On my web page, barbara.simons.org, I state that I will create an advisory group of experts in technology, policy, economics, and the law. While overall policy decisions are the responsibility of the Board member, those decisions should be as informed as possible. For example, I can imagine a proposal being submitted for a Board vote that contains wording that is significant for a lawyer, but appears insignificant to a computer scientist like me. Were I not to consult a lawyer who I trusted on such matters prior to voting, I would be being irresponsible. Even if I were a lawyer, there would be times when I would want to consult with some other lawyer to see if there were some important point that I overlooked. Because individual volunteers will not always be available, I would need to assemble a group of experts to whom I could turn for assistance. I hope that those of us who care a great deal about the future course of ICANN will be willing to assist the winner of the election. Larry Lessig, Karl Auerbach, and I have agreed that if one of us wins, the others will help in whatever way they can. Lyman Chapin - posted on 2000-09-22 06:52:34 The at-large directors should bring to the Board the perspective of individual Internet users as a class - the civil society dimension that is not covered by any of the Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees. If elected, I would either create or adopt a forum (both web and e-mail accessible) in which individual views could be presented and discussed, through which I could maintain an open channel to the NA membership, and would also consider proposals for more formal arrangements, such as those that have appeared in this Q&A area. I would expect to spend considerably more time discussing issues with constituents than participating in ICANN meetings. Harris Miller - posted on 2000-09-18 05:53:53 I believe that the board member should and will represent the broader North American user community, not just those who have registered. The relatively modest number of people who registered in this process (whether because of server problems or lack of awareness, etc.) is the first indicator that ICANN needs to do still more in reaching out and communicating with the overall community. To me, communication is more than mere process -- i.e., participating on listservs, or maintaining a web page. Those are good things. And as a leader of several non-profit technology organizations, I participate in such fora for policy discussions daily. Communication in this context should also involve empowerment. If we take seriously the idea that ICANN is to be consensus-driven, and that there must be a means of documenting that consensus, I can envision seeking responses from constituents on particular issues before a formal decision arises. However this outreach is done, I firmly believe it should be transparent, open, and accountable. Only by making this commitment can we build and sustain ICANN's legitimacy with the entire user community. Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-09-17 20:05:48 I think the board member would need to reach even beyond the registered and activated members. We know that the current registration effort by ICANN was inadequate and most likely excluded many others (whether through lack of information or downed servers). So I would view my role as someone who needed to communicate both with the current members and the broader Internet community. That said, I would do online forums for both the registered and unregistered. I would formalize some opinion gathering through on-line membership voting opportunities to help measure preferences. I would pay attention to, and communicate with, any coalitions and organizations that develop among the membership to discern the views of the membership. I would state my preferences on important issues prior to board determinations in order to get membership feedback ahead of time (rather than having to explain my vote afterwards). How much time? As much as it takes, subject to the limitations of my day job. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-14 00:22:19 This is a very hard question. The obvious answers are easy -- I would set up a discussion space, and would continue to answer my own email on questions raised. But the more difficult issue is how to involve a large, diverse membership. Here's one idea that I am not sure would work, but that I would want to try: First, some background: (1) I do not believe in polls, at least about matters that require consideration. (2) I do not believe in experts, at least about matters that require policy judgment. That therefore eliminates the two easy responses to the question. But there is a kind of process -- pioneered by Jim Fishkin of Texas -- where a random selection of members would be brought into a deliberative process, where they would review and deliberate about selected matters, and after an extended deliberation, give their views. Fishkin calls this a deliberative poll, and he has run a large number of these in real space. I would like to experiment with the same concept within the ICANN at-large membership space. The details need to be worked out, and the key is experiment. I don't know whether it would work, and I am not committed to the view that it would be an answer. But we should try new ways to involve not just the squeaky wheels, but a the membership more generally. If this process produced sensible and valid results, it could supplement the resources of the board. Karl Auerbach - posted on 2000-09-12 22:09:19 I believe that I'll represent more than merely those who have signed up for ICANN membership and activated it. -- It's my feeling that an at-large board member represents all Internet users. There's two parts to communicating with the net community - speaking and listening. As for speaking - I maintain my web site http://www.cavebear.com/ and I'm fairly chatty on e-mail lists. As for listening - I read and respond to lots of e-mail (karl@CaveBear.com) I've been apalled at the lack of explaination from ICANN about what is being considered, how decisions are being made, and who is accountable for those decisions. It's my intention to be an open book. Take a look at my platform: http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/platform.htm#conduct As for the time committment - I've already spent several years spending several hours a day dealing with ICANN and I figure that it will continue to consume a significant part of my day-to-day life.