Questionaire send by Christian Ahlert as part of the NAIS to gather 
input for The AtLarge Study. Spelling errors may be included...
[posted 23.4.01]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Issues and Questions


        ICANN and participation

1.      Mission - How would you describe ICANN's (main) mission?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To ensure a running and developing internet that is easy and free
to use for all of humankind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2.      Participation - Is there a need for public participation in
achieving that mission? 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As most of the world's political systems and certainly that of the
quite influential United States are driven by market forces, changes
of any kind tend to be somewhat less user orientated and somewhat to
the advantage of the more powerfull participants most of whom very
directly aim to gain profit from the change. However, history has
shown that this ultimately leads to civil unrest and hence welfare
losses, only on a timescale longer than that that an average economic
player can understand. To avoid that stabilising counter forces arise
to achieve an equilibrium of interests. Without public participation
either direct or -as in most democracies- indirect ICANN will not be
able to continue on the long run. It is the democratic government's 
duty to prevent this.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i.      If not, why?  [n/a] 
ii.     If so, how? 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is a limited gouvernmental influence in Icann's system: the GAC.
However, this can only be seen as a very indirect method of public
participation. ICANN serves as an example for open structures and
public participation in decition making in many ways (even if some
might disagree here). It could even be an example for direct
participation to other international organisations if it chooses to be
so. To achieve this, the main difficulty is to raise more interest in
the topics dealt with (for direct participation a larger number of
citizen willing to spend time and recources on the subject is needed)
and make sure that input is recognised. Alternativly, a method of
slightly more indirect participiation can be found: The common method
would be an At Large Council. Both ways could be successfull.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        At Large election phase

3.      You - Did you take part in the ALM elections? (i.e. did you
register and/or vote)
i.      If not, why? [n/a]
ii.     If you did, were you satisfied with the process (i.e. nomination,
on-line voting mechanism, communication, etc)?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes. Interestingly, the complicated election method made it necessary for
the voters to read at least some details about every candidate to sort them 
in the order of interest. The technical background ie. the insufficient
number of servers were, of course, very disappointing.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
iii.    Do you consider your behaviour/opinion mirrored by the majority of
your peer group? 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mostly. However, the complicated voting procedure with 3 numbers (that
I consider to have been necessary) was a difficulty for some people as
was, of course, the missing server power, that caused the number of
voters to be smaller than they should have been, even if the outcome 
for Europe would most likely have been the same.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4.      Importance and coverage - Do you believe the ALM elections were of
a high priority within your country and/or constituency? And why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, due to a press campaign by the magazine 'Der Spiegel'. Interest was
very high, coverage can be estimated to have reached about 25% of the 
population with effective exposure of maybe 0.1% The gouvernment did pick
up the topic with a somewhat competent statement by the research ministry.
However, the effects of the work of the MITF were very small.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5.      Disturbances
Are you aware of any disturbances, irregularities
or complaints with regard to the elections and how have they been
addressed?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was contacted by a very limited number of individuals due to problems
with entering the correct numbers (the 'PIN-' part proved to be a problem
for many) and, of course, general complaints due to the server 
problem.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6.      In selecting the remaining four ALM seats, should another election
be held?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Definitely so.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i.      If not, what other representation mechanism would you suggest? 
[n/a]
ii.     If so, would you change parts of the electoral system and how?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An indirect election via an AtLarge Council should at be considered
again. Both models have advantages and disadvantages, maybe it is
useful to combine them, eg. in electing the remaining four indirect.
However, it also makes things very complicated. AtLarge members should
by all means remain to be AtLarge members. Re-applying makes things
unnecessary expensive and annoying for participants. Finally, :-) the
MITF should be funded with at least half the NAIS budget.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
II.     Beyond the Election: Institutional Design

Would you propose any particular change to the current institutional
design of ICANN and of its Board to improve participation and
representation of the public and of specific interest groups?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1> Remote participation is much less effective than real-life. Funds
should be prepared for a limited number of chosen average individuals
to participate in person, especially for 3rd world countries. Of
course, this would add more secondary work to the ICANN duties. 

2> In general, the names council as the more policy making body of
ICANN's SO is business biased. This is some way leveled by some
directors that listen very carefully to what the non-business
constitution/assembly has to say.  However, there is no real body part
of ICANN to voice user matters and provide input for the AtLarge
directors apart from the common boards, lists and forums that have a
high noise level. If the AtLarge directors fail to get a feeling for
these matters on their own, the whole concept becomes fragile quickly
eventually resulting in some governments (especially European/Asian)
to drop their support of ICANN. This is especially a danger should the
US government decide to use ICANN to increase business support.
Adressing this may cause a fundamental change to ICANN's equlibrium
and cause new uncertaincies.

23.04.2001
Iliya Nickelt-Czycykowski, 
Membership Implementation Task Force Western Europe
Representative of the 'Virtual working chapter' (VOV) of the German 
Social Democrats at ICANN's NCDNHC of DNSO