[ALSC-Forum] Re: Reconciling Top-Down with Bottom-Up

[DannyYounger]

Dear Mike,

Perhaps you are taking issue with my characterization of the ALSC as a 
top-down body.  The composition of this committee did not include any 
At-Large Directors, any candidates for At-Large seats, nor any 
representatives of At-Large organizations.  A report generated by such a 
group is somewhat akin to a report being prepared on Democrats by a committee 
fully comprised of Republicans.  I do not argue that ALSC members are not 
respected knowledgable members of the Internet community, only that this 
particular committee composition unfortunately creates the appearance of 
bias, and that their work-product is indicative of a top-down approach.

A report prepared by a top-down body has certain characteristics.  Typically 
it is short, since it has no particular need to justify its recommendations.  
In this case the ALSC report ran a mere 22 pages while the NAIS preliminary 
and final reports collectively total more than 250 pages.  While the ALSC 
report spends no more than a single phrase on the the option for nine 
directors (deeming it "illogical" with no further explanation), the NAIS 
report fully details at length the reasoning behind their recommendations.

Top-down bodies have been known for releasing reports that invariably favor 
predetermined goals established by Administrations that seek to justify their 
planned policy changes.  It is very hard for us to believe that the ALSC 
heard a consensus articulated by participants in their outreach sessions that 
called for only six At-Large Directors.   While this view will garner the 
support of current ICANN Board members, it is assuredly not what the Internet 
community would deem to be a consensus position.

The ALSC was chartered as per Article II Section 5 of the Bylaws which 
indicates that "the Corporation shall initiate a comprehensive study of the 
concept, structure and processes relating to an "At Large" membership for the 
Corporation."  A top-down report (although ostensibly a "clean sheet") will 
invariably avoid the truly vexing questions, and as such will not consider 
the element of "membership" even though chartered to comprehensively examine 
this question -- granting the At-Large "membership" might potentially result 
in the prospect of derivative lawsuits, so the topic is taboo to a top-down 
body, and the ALSC chose not to discuss the matter.   By contrast, the 
bottom-up NAIS report responsibly attends to this issue on pages 115 and 116 
of their report.

The disagreements between the ALSC and NAIS reports are more than mere 
differences in perception as to the role ICANN is playing in the Internet and 
of the participation mechanisms that can enhance its effectiveness-- the NAIS 
report cherishes the promises that ICANN made to strike an equal balance 
between public and private interests, while the ALSC report is prepared to 
subordinate the public stake.  Diminishing the public's role is not a 
position that would be advocated by a bottom-up group.

Fortunately, our ICANN process has allowed for both the bottom-up perspective 
and the top-down point of view.  Both are essential, and certainly there is 
room for compromise between the two positions.  It will be interesting to see 
how the ALSC fulfills its mandate to "forge consensus".