At-Large Summit: Difference between revisions
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The five topics were: 1) '''at-large engagement''', 2) '''the future of ICANN''', 3) '''New gTLDs including IDNs''', 4) '''security issues within ICANN's mandate''', and 4) '''transparency and accountability'''. The general sentiment was that 1) participation was poor; 2) the future of ICANN depended on safeguarding against capture, which was defined as unilateral decision-making and favoring vested interests; 3) there were unnecessary barriers to entry for a broad variety of gTLD applicants; 4) DNS security needed to be stricter; and 5) ICANN needs to be more transparent for Internet users who want to participate and needs to balance operator/business interest with ALAC/GAC. <ref>https://atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf</ref> | The five topics were: 1) '''at-large engagement''', 2) '''the future of ICANN''', 3) '''New gTLDs including IDNs''', 4) '''security issues within ICANN's mandate''', and 4) '''transparency and accountability'''. The general sentiment was that 1) participation was poor; 2) the future of ICANN depended on safeguarding against capture, which was defined as unilateral decision-making and favoring vested interests; 3) there were unnecessary barriers to entry for a broad variety of gTLD applicants; 4) DNS security needed to be stricter; and 5) ICANN needs to be more transparent for Internet users who want to participate and needs to balance operator/business interest with ALAC/GAC. <ref>https://atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf</ref> | ||
===At-Large Engagement=== | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
! | ! Issue !! Recommendations | ||
|- | |- | ||
| IDN POLICY || | | IDN POLICY || | ||
Line 51: | Line 52: | ||
|} | |} | ||
===Transparency and Accountability=== | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
! Issue !! Recommendations | |||
|- | |||
| Transparency || Accountability || | |||
|- | |||
| Timing of Major Documents || | |||
# State How staff deals with input from constituencies on documents for the Board | |||
# Schedule for documents and Executive Summaries to allow time for discussion | |||
|- | |||
| Finance || | |||
# Develop a budget for each ICANN entity (including At-Large) and make it public | |||
# Define the responsibilities for executing these budgets | |||
# periodic public evaluation of budgetary execution | |||
|- | |||
| Budget || | |||
# Create budgetary allocation for expenditure by ALAC and its constituent RALOs | |||
# Account for expenditures made by ALAC and its constituent members | |||
|- | |||
| Accounting for Public Input || | |||
# Appropriately annotate substantive ICANN documents under consultation to indicate the origin of support or dissent for specific proposals | |||
|- | |||
| Contractual Compliance and Process || | |||
# Document the life cycle of compliance procedures, requirements, metrics, follow-up, enforcement and appeals | |||
# Make available for public review what is required of the contracting parties, including the timeline for compliance, related correspondence and statistics | |||
# Periodically audit and improve goals to help this effort with the result of allocating additional resources should ICANN staff be unable to cope with the resultant high volume of complaints | |||
|- | |||
| ICANN's Public Service Role || | |||
# Annually orient one ICANN meeting towards issues relating to non-commercial, commercial, and individual users | |||
# Open up the periodic ICANN regional meetings to participants concerned with the public interest from the region concerned | |||
|- | |||
| Conflicts of Interest || | |||
# Review and update conflict-of-interest policies as they apply to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, and other relevant entities | |||
|- | |||
| Accountability || | |||
|- | |||
| Joint Project Agreement || | |||
# balance operator/business interest and ALAC/GAC | |||
|- | |||
| Addressing ALAC Advice || | |||
# the Board must react formally to advice from ALAC and enter into formal consultations to discuss any disagreements | |||
# the Board must explain why it rejects ALAC's advice when it does | |||
# the composition of the Board should represent Civil Society as represented by the At Large Community | |||
# the ICANN Board should include two voting Directors nominated by the At Large Community | |||
|} | |||
===Other Working Group Topics=== | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
! | ! Issue !! Recommendations | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Future of ICANN|| | |Future of ICANN|| |
Revision as of 21:18, 11 December 2020
The At-Large Summit (ATLAS) is a gathering of the representatives of individual Internet users participating in ICANN. There have been three ATLASes.
Overview[edit | edit source]
Goals; Obstacles; Achievements
Background[edit | edit source]
ATLAS I[edit | edit source]
ATLAS I was the first-ever gathering of the representatives of individual Internet users participating in ICANN. Organized as part of ICANN 34 in Mexico City, ATLAS I featured two general sessions for all participants as well as thematic sessions and workshops on issues led by At-Large community members.[1]
Five Working Groups were formed to draft and finalize a Summit Declaration to the ICANN Board.[2] The subjects for the working groups were chosen via a survey of the entire At-Large Community between December 2008 and January 2009. The summit participants were assigned to the working group that they selected as of most interest to them, and then the groups were balanced regionally and according to language needs. All five working groups began working together in February 2009 in advance of the Summit and met twice during the summit to finalize their statements. The five topics were: 1) at-large engagement, 2) the future of ICANN, 3) New gTLDs including IDNs, 4) security issues within ICANN's mandate, and 4) transparency and accountability. The general sentiment was that 1) participation was poor; 2) the future of ICANN depended on safeguarding against capture, which was defined as unilateral decision-making and favoring vested interests; 3) there were unnecessary barriers to entry for a broad variety of gTLD applicants; 4) DNS security needed to be stricter; and 5) ICANN needs to be more transparent for Internet users who want to participate and needs to balance operator/business interest with ALAC/GAC. [3]
At-Large Engagement[edit | edit source]
Issue | Recommendations |
---|---|
IDN POLICY |
|
GNSO |
|
LOCAL LEVEL |
|
ICANN MEETINGS |
|
GLOBAL OUTREACH |
|
TRANSLATION |
|
TRAVEL SUPPORT |
|
Transparency and Accountability[edit | edit source]
Issue | Recommendations | |
---|---|---|
Transparency | Accountability | |
Timing of Major Documents |
| |
Finance |
| |
Budget | ||
Accounting for Public Input |
| |
Contractual Compliance and Process |
| |
ICANN's Public Service Role |
| |
Conflicts of Interest |
| |
Accountability | ||
Joint Project Agreement | ||
Addressing ALAC Advice |
|
Other Working Group Topics[edit | edit source]
Issue | Recommendations |
---|---|
Future of ICANN |
|
Barriers to new GTLDs & IDNs |
|
DNS Security |
|
ATLAS II[edit | edit source]
ATLAS II was held in London in conjunction with ICANN 50. The summit brought together representatives from At-Large Structures to debate ICANN policies, share information, and experience an ICANN meeting. The attendees represented Internet end-users, and many had never experienced an ICANN meeting before. The goal of the meeting was to reach consensus and draft reports on five issues.[4]
Working Groups[edit | edit source]
the Future of Multistakeholderism[edit | edit source]
the Globalization of ICANN[edit | edit source]
Global Internet: the User Perspective[edit | edit source]
ICANN Transparency and Accountability[edit | edit source]
At-Large Community Engagement in ICANN[edit | edit source]
ATLAS III[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ICANN+34+-+Mexico+City+At-Large+Summit+-+March+2009
- ↑ https://atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf
- ↑ https://atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf
- ↑ At-Large Community to Convene in London for ATLAS II ICANN.org; Retrieved 10 July 2014