Slashdot Mirror

ddstreet writes: "ICANN now has a publicly-available At-Large survey that everyone should fill out. It basically only is to find out if people will pay a fee to be (or remain) an ICANN At-Large member. If you have disagreed with ICANN decisions in the past, you definately should fill this out to let them know you want to be (or remain) an ICANN member."

Cutriss writes: "The ICANN seems to be thinking about giving in to public demands. According to this article on Wired.com mentions that ICANN is considering allowing domain owners to elect their board of directors. It's a step in the right direction. I wonder if domain owners could collaborate and cast a collective vote of no confidence, absolving ICANN of its responsibilities..." I wouldn't call it a step in the right direction since each revision to ICANN's Board involves less individual representation and more corporate representatives. There's another story with some quotes from Karl Auerbach. The At-Large study that we talked about earlier has now been released in its final form. If you don't like the way ICANN is going, please consider attending their meetings. Next one is in Los Angeles next week.

mpawlo writes: "As reported by ICANNwatch IDG Sweden has published a column where I discuss the result of the At Large Study Committee. I have been asked by Mr Byfield, one of the editors of ICANNwatch, to provide ICANNwatch with a rough summary of the article. This summary might interest some Slashdotters as well, even though it's hardly front page material. The chairman of At Large Study Committee, Mr Carl Bildt, has submitted a reply to my column. Following is a rough summary of both our articles.

I state in my column:

"It should be noted that what we discuss is merely a regulation of new top-level domain names. In case ICANN or another domain name regulator should have a wider scope of power and decide upon other technical measures, ICANN needs to get such a mandate."

(---)

"Bildt is speaking of the leadership over the Internet and Pontus Forsstrom is speaking of the "power over the Internet. I think such metaphors lead the reader in the wrong direction. The Internet is not regulated top-down in the way that Bildt and Forsstrom suggests. The force of the Internet and the success of the Internet are depending upon the protocols. The protocols are often developed in the working groups of the IETF, but any protocol might as well be developed in a boy's room in his parents' house at Lidingo (Mikael's note: Lidingo is a suburb to Stockholm, Sweden) as well as in the most secret corridors of Microsoft. The power over the Internet is distributed."

(---)

"Bildt is convinced that ICANN will remain as a domain name regulator. Bildt suggests in his report a possibility to let the domain name holders elect the board members of ICANN. In the Bildt suggestion every domain name holder get one vote in the global election to the ICANN board."

(---)

"The only regulation that I consider sound is a global regulation based on the participation of nations. The work of ICANN affects mostly those who still have not found their way out on the Internet. To make domain name ownership a condition for voting rights is therefore not appropriate. Current domain name holders should be most interested in decreasing the amount of new top-level domain names. New top-level domain names will lead to inflation in the legal and economic rights of the domain name holder.

A new top-level domain name can lead to multiple registration of the same domain names and defamation and degeneration. A "good" domain name will be less worth if it's available under multiple top-level domain names.

However, it will benefit society if the name space is widened, while it will lead to more competition and innovation.

Hence, I find it more suitable to make as many nations as possible, offline or online, participate in ICANN or an organisation replacing ICANN. It can be achieved through the United Nations or a similar body."

(---)

"The connection between ownership and voting rights was a la mode in Europe at the mid 19th Century, but as an instrument for democracy in the 21th Century I consider the concept dusty and obsolete."

(---)

"I am afraid of the politician Carl Bildt. If Bildt's suggestion is approved and used, we will create a domain name regulator that lacks severely when it comes to representation. Only the landowners will get to vote. I am also afraid that Icann and its investigator Carl Bildt consider a widened ICANN with a broadened scope and a new government for the Internet."

Mr Bildt replies:
"It is good if we get more debates on the ICANN issues in Sweden. We brag about being best in the world on the Internet, but we are silent as mice (idiomatic expression, Mikael's note) when it comes to these issues. Crap."

(---)

"Mikael Pawlo seems to have two points. First, he wants to keep the decentralised decision making process on the Internet. Second, he wants to have some UN like organisation to make decisions, in practice probably the International Telecommunications Union, ITU."

(---)

"However, you can't have both."

(---)

"ICANN is certainly no government of the Internet and can not be such a body. The scope of ICANN is technical. But with the Internet as the most important infrastructure those issues will be important."

(---)

"Therefore I have a hard time to appreciate his (Mikael Pawlo's) suggestion as a real alternative."

Read my column (in Swedish).

Read Mr Bildts reply (in Swedish).

The column and the reply was published by the Swedish branch of the International Data Group. Please be advised that the translations are unofficial translations and that Mr Bildt may or may not agree with me on the paragraphs choosen to be translated."

perp writes: "ICANN has published the draft of its At-Large recommendations. It's long, but it looks like they're trying to raise the bar for at-large membership by requiring at-large members to a) pay a fee and b) be a registered domain holder. Their comments about all the non-committed at-large members who "enrolled only because it was easy" gave me a laugh; it took three days of trying for me to register." The draft also proposes slashing At-Large board members from 9 to 6. But there are some good points in there about organizational issues.