Slashdot Mirror

gnaremooz writes to tell us that The Register recently sat down with Karl Auerbach, the last publicly elected member of the ICANN board, and discussed some of the more recent developments. "Perhaps my main point of view regarding what I want to do for the net is expressed in my presentation [PPT] "From Barnstorming to Boeing - Transforming the Internet Into a Lifeline Utility" (speakers notes avilable [PDF]). I've long been interested in making the net a solid utility, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the folks who have to go out and fix things at 3am. I'm very interested in building tools for those folks."

gnaremooz writes to tell us that The Register recently sat down with Karl Auerbach, the last publicly elected member of the ICANN board, and discussed some of the more recent developments. "Perhaps my main point of view regarding what I want to do for the net is expressed in my presentation [PPT] "From Barnstorming to Boeing - Transforming the Internet Into a Lifeline Utility" (speakers notes avilable [PDF]). I've long been interested in making the net a solid utility, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the folks who have to go out and fix things at 3am. I'm very interested in building tools for those folks."

JCallery writes "CNN is reporting on the plan drawn up by ICANN's restructuring committee after ICANN decided to abandon direct elections." We had a earlier story about the restructuring plan with some notes from one of the board members who attended. ICANN's plan is online and a must-read for anyone interested in internet governance issues. Below, I have some notes about why this restructuring would be terrible idea for regular internet users.

If you've followed the history of ICANN at all, you know that it was originally set up to have substantial representation from the general public (known as At-Large representatives) - 9 of 18 board members. The original unelected board immediately set about undermining that, only electing 5 members and keeping on four "board-squatters" from the original unelected bunch.

The elections of the five At-Large members had two flaws from the point of view of ICANN's unelected board:

1. There were assorted technical issues with the voting process, due apparently to incompetence from the contractor who handled it.
2. Two of the five new board members who were elected did not represent the same corporate interests as the rest of the board.

Of these two flaws, the second was by far the more severe. The board risked losing control of ICANN to people who might run it for the public good rather than for the good of the corporations represented on the board. They started backing away from having any sort of elected representation whatsoever. In February 2002 ICANN President Lynn floated a reform proposal which would eliminate the At-Large representation - or rather, it would keep something called "At-Large", that would no longer be elected by the general public but instead appointed by the Board itself. Instead of the general public picking new ICANN Board members, the ICANN Board would pick new ICANN Board members. This was followed by a vote which confirmed ICANN's commitment to eliminating elected representation.

Now the reform proposal is out. There would be two classes of board members:

• approximately eight ex-officio members (members holding the board seat due to some other title or position they hold)
• approximately five to eleven members picked by a Nominating Committee (the Committee to be chosen by the current Board) and perhaps confirmed by the Board

It is important to note how thoroughly captured this process is. Many of the ex-officio seats accrue from positions that are selected by the ICANN Board. So the ICANN Board picks someone to be chief dogwalker, and the chief dogwalker gets an automatic position on ICANN's Board.

The seats selected by the Nominating Committee are also extremely vulnerable to capture. Let me use a real-life example of how nominating committees work to show what I mean: my credit union.

My credit union has a board structure very similar to the one proposed for ICANN: several ex-officio members, and a number of seats elected by the general populace (everyone who has an account at the credit union). This structure is actually more flexible than that proposed for ICANN, since ICANN does not plan any direct elections at all. However, the credit union membership picks from among candidates selected by a Nominating Committee. Every year or two, I get a ballot in the mail. I can choose from among all the candidates selected by the Nominating Committee, and I can check boxes for the candidates that I prefer, up to the number of open seats available on the Board.

I never return these ballots. Why, you might ask? Because the number of candidates is usually identical to the number of open seats. Three empty seats, three candidates to choose from. Six empty seats, six candidates to choose from. I think one year they might have had more candidates than open seats, but it was an aberration.

This system apparently works well for credit unions: would you believe that they pay interest on my checking account? What it does guarantee is that all future Board members will represent the same biases that are present in the Board at the instant the system was instituted. In my credit union's case, this guarantees "fiscal responsibility" or "fiscal conservatism".

For ICANN, what it would do is institutionalize the biases currently present. Whatever biases are there right now, will be there forever, as the system becomes a self-reinforcing feedback loop with no external controls.

The Board's current biases are toward:

• expanding ICANN's mission from a purely technical body to one that is willing to govern the Internet - taking on assorted social/political issues as it sees fit
• running ICANN for private profit rather than public benefit

Neither of these two traits needs reinforcing. Karl Auerbach, one of ICANN's At-Large directors, has his thoughts on a possible ICANN structure.

According to an EFF press release (press release mirror) today, Karl Auerbach (the North American elected representative to ICANN's board) filed suit (petition mirror) today against ICANN itself to obtain financial and other records that he has been seeking to obtain since December 2000. As a bit of background, according to general summaries that ICANN has released, it now spends about $6 million per year (for a job that used to be done by volunteers); roughly half of all the money it spends goes to the law firm of Jones Day.

According to an EFF press release (press release mirror) today, Karl Auerbach (the North American elected representative to ICANN's board) filed suit (petition mirror) today against ICANN itself to obtain financial and other records that he has been seeking to obtain since December 2000. As a bit of background, according to general summaries that ICANN has released, it now spends about $6 million per year (for a job that used to be done by volunteers); roughly half of all the money it spends goes to the law firm of Jones Day.

According to an EFF press release (press release mirror) today, Karl Auerbach (the North American elected representative to ICANN's board) filed suit (petition mirror) today against ICANN itself to obtain financial and other records that he has been seeking to obtain since December 2000. As a bit of background, according to general summaries that ICANN has released, it now spends about $6 million per year (for a job that used to be done by volunteers); roughly half of all the money it spends goes to the law firm of Jones Day.

Pelerin writes "At its meeting in Ghana, ICANN has voted against the proposals made in the Final Report on ICANN At-Large Membership, which among other things proposed an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO), which would hold elections for At-Large seats on the ICANN board. Membership in ALSO would have been "based on individual domain name holders". In today's resolution ICANN says that it "is not persuaded that global elections are the only or the best means of achieving meaningful public representation or the informed participation of Internet users in the ICANN process" and proceeded to reject the proposals, while at the same time engaging in a bit of double-speak about its action according to dissenting board member Karl Auerbach. It looks like ICANN is leaning towards its presidents' reform proposal which argues that ICANN suffers from "Too Much Process" among other problems, and that seats on the board should be chosen by the board itself, from among nominations submitted by governments and a new Nominating Committee (NomCom)."

Stanford University held a workshop last Friday - The Policy Implications of End-to-End - covering some of the policy questions cropping up which threaten the end-to-end paradigm that serves today's Internet so well. It was attended by representatives from the FCC, along with technologists, economists, lawyers and others. Here are my notes from the workshop. I'm going to try to skip describing each individual's background and resume, instead substituting a link to a biography page whenever I can. (Part two of two - part one ran yesterday.)

The final segment of the morning covered caching. The main issue centered around transparent caching, where users ask for certain content but their request is silently fulfilled by a caching proxy server instead, generally without the user having any way to detect this. The standard concept of caching has the user being presented with the same content she would otherwise have gotten from the requested site, but that need not be true - Singapore, China and Australia have all used transparent caches to censor their citizens. This can also be a security violation (are you really talking to the secure server on stupidpettoys.com, or a proxy in between? Most users won't notice the difference.). Ann Brick noted a subsidiary issue - big commercial players have the ability to pay for their sites to be cached, while individuals do not. Similar to the QoS issue, this might be used to discriminate between paying, fast, commercial sites, and sites owned by individuals or even competitors.

David Clark made the insightful observation that dollars spent on caching don't go to general network improvements -- one small piece of the network is improved by caches, but the same money spent improving the whole network could improve it for everyone. Timothy Denton concluded this segment with the characterization of transparent caching as the difference between "form follows function" and "function follows form": the mere presence of caching and the ability to interfere with content delivery in the middle of the network destroys end-to-end and creates opportunities for mischief.

In the afternoon, there were two larger sessions covering broadband and wireless Internet access. In both areas, the companies controlling these access methods have strong motivations to violate end-to-end principles.

Jerry Duvall led the broadband discussion. He presented a rather fascinating economists' view of the situation -- an economists' world being solely concerned with customers, producers and markets. Laws are necessary to enable markets -- contract law, commercial law, fraud law, and so on are needed in order for markets to function. He summoned up the ghost of Adam Smith with a brief review of capitalism: producers always conspire against the public to get more profits from them, only competition keeps them in check. Marketing, lock-in, monopolization, and predatory pricing are always used by producers. He denied that end-to-end represented any sort of a perfect competitive market, however, suggesting that customer wants cause problems -- in some cases, customers actually want bundles from a single provider, and may actually prefer non-end-to-end Internet access. From an economist's point of view, end-to-end is only a means to an end. The end in this case is creating value for the customer. If that involves end-to-end Internet access, fine. If it doesn't, still fine. The value to the customer is paramount, engineering elegance is secondary.

Duvall also suggested that many observers have a naive view of regulation. With regard to the debate over open access to cable systems, he stated that there was no easy way for regulators to "come in and fix it." Regulation implies overcoming the resistance of entrenched players, and in the case of open access to cable systems, AT&T and other cable giants have proven adept at fighting lawsuits in support of their ability to keep their systems closed.

As we've seen previously, there was discussion of the reasons why end-to-end can be violated: sometimes customers want it, but (probably more often) the wants of companies are the driving force. Duvall suggested the external value of end-to-end in fostering competition and democratic values isn't adequately valued in most considerations of the economics of broadband. That is, the cost of violating end-to-end is spread out among many users of the network, but the benefits from that action accrue mainly to individual companies -- in economic parlance, this is called externalizing costs.

Another panelist emphasized the democratic value of open systems, a recurring topic in Lessig's writings. There was a bit more discussion of bundling-as-an-aid-for-novice-users vs. bundling-as-a-way-to-lock-in-customers. Jerome Saltzer reiterated the time-tested solution for monopoly problems: separate the content from the content-carriers. Deborah Lathen, acting perhaps as devil's advocate, asked why the builder of the pipe shouldn't be allowed to monopolize it. Duvall noted that no matter what the FCC might do to regulate cable carriers, that economic theory doesn't hold much chance for relief -- any time there's a monopoly (over the cable pipe), the monopolist is going to be able to extract monopoly rents, one way or another. If regulation affects a certain aspects of the business, the monopolist will find some other way to leverage the monopoly for greater profits. The only sure remedy is eliminating the monopoly.

Further audience discussion raised the idea that the concept of "an ISP" is a odd sort of legacy brought about by the necessity to have an intermediary between the telephone network and the TCP/IP network. In the future, the concept of an ISP may change radically. A question was asked: what benefit does the public get by allowing the cable companies to monopolize access? There were no good answers.

Mark Laubach gave a good overview of the architecture of cable Internet access, referring to the DOCSIS standard, which wasn't designed with open access in mind. Laubach stated that "basic IP dialtone" -- that is, a simple TCP/IP Internet connection without frills or bundled services -- should be a consumer right, which should apply to every broadband service regardless of delivery method: cable, DSL, wireless or satellite services.

Peter Huber summarized the open-access debate as it affected phone companies. The phone companies had a 1Mhz twisted pair of copper strands that they swore up and down couldn't be shared. They were ordered to share it, and now are doing so: local and long-distance competition, shared data/voice over that tiny line, co-location at central offices, etc. Now the cable companies have a 750mhz copper wire that they claim is "impossible" to share. Huber emphasized that whatever the regulations, cable and phone companies should be treated equally. Currently there are disjointed regulations, which (depending on your viewpoint) either unduly hamper phone companies or leave cable companies unfairly unrestricted.

Further discussion brought out the case of Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm and certain other cities have taken on the job of laying fiber-optic cable as a municipal service, similar to sewer service or water or roads. Since the municipality built the pipe to the home, there is no issue of a company attempting to monopolize the pipe, and any company which wants to offer Internet service over the pipe may do so. As a result, Stockholm residents are getting extremely fast access speeds at prices less than U.S. residents pay for cable Internet access, and customers don't have to worry about the cable monopoly steadily reducing their upstream speeds, or banning servers, or whatever other crackdown U.S. cable providers have thought of most recently. The panel then debated whether (and how) it would make sense to move the U.S. to that sort of municipal model. A panelist threw out the figure that true open access to cable pipes might require a choice of 400 ISPs. An audience member suggested that as things are currently going in the U.S., there might be a choice of five ISPs at most, hand-picked by the cable provider.

David Clark added that whatever solution is proposed, it must be an ongoing process -- since cable Internet access is certainly not going to be the final stage of bandwidth development. Finally the broadband session closed with a pithy statement that, despite claims to the contrary, content is not king -- there is, and always has been, more money in individuals talking to each other than in one-way content distribution. The question that remains is how to convince broadband providers that there is more money to be made in selling large quantities of low-profit services rather than small quantities of more profitable ones.

The day concluded with a session about wireless Internet access. Unsurprisingly, WAP was the first topic to come up: a closed, end-to-end-unfriendly, expensive protocol that is all but deceased in the market, yet still actively promoted by companies that hope to benefit from controlling wireless Internet access.

Karl Auerbach had an insightful comment about why to use plain vanilla TCP/IP instead of a bespoke wireless protocol. Similar to the argument raised by Bruce Schneier and others that using a proven crypto algorithm makes sense because there are a lot of bad protocol writers in the world, Auerbach posited that freely available TCP/IP stacks have had the bugs beaten out of them, but the average proprietary protocol hasn't. The topic shifted to the location information that is now required to be built in to mobile phones. The panel discussed the control issues inherent in different network architectures: location information could be built into the phone, and controlled by the user, or it could be built into the cell towers, and controlled by the phone company (or law enforcement, or advertisers). It looks like the second architecture will be the one that is deployed.

Yochai Benkler brought up the issue of spread spectrum changing the rules for FCC frequency allocation -- more communications may shift to frequencies where the FCC does not require licenses to broadcast. Dewayne Hendricks gave a lengthy and interesting description of how amateur radio is currently being used in a manner similar to the venerable Fidonet to pass packet data over the short-wave frequencies via a store-and-forward system. The interesting part is that Amateur Packet Radio has been around for 15 years or so. Hendricks' concept was that the first truly free network would be one composed of independent wireless spread-spectrum devices creating an ad hoc network which could not be censored or controlled by any entity whatsoever. One audience member quipped that disruptive technologies always appear to incumbents as toys.

Hendricks noted some other wireless WANs, such as one in the San Francisco Bay area using Breezecom wireless cards and antennae. (Coincidentally, Salon did a story on wireless WANs just a few days ago.) Dale Hatfield noted that Hendricks' network could be created today using licensed spectrum, and noted that the greatest danger is incumbent spectrum-holders pushing regulations which protect their investments by making it difficult for the FCC to open up or use sections of the spectrum for these innovative uses.

Towards the end, one member of the audience (and I do apologize for not catching who it was), pulled everything together by noting the convergence between end-to-end as a technological issue, open access as an economic issue, and democracy and public debate as a political issue. The idea of eliminating "gatekeepers" on the internet is important for a great many reasons, whether you look at it as a technological issue of promoting progress and innovation, or as an economic issue of fostering competition and preventing monopolies from abusing their power, or as an issue of promoting free and unrestrained speech on the communications media of the 21st century. This is certainly one of the most important issues facing the country today, but relatively few people know anything -- even a smidgeon -- about it, or at most they've read a few news reports about the AOL/Time Warner merger. I'm glad to see such a diverse and intelligent group working on the issues, and if they don't yet have all the answers, it's only because they want to get it right.

troyboy writes: "The ICANN election results are up. Go here for the complete results. The North American election went down to two candidates before there was a majority winner: Karl Auerbach." Only for the North American election was the instant run-off system needed; for all other regions there was an immediate majority. Viewing the election results in practice is fascinating and I can't help but wonder how much the U.S. elections would improve if we used a similar system.

A quote from Auerbach's candidate webpage:

"My candidacy is one that is founded on the belief that the Internet should not be controlled and dominated by those who aspire to nothing higher than mass marketing. It is my position that individual people ought to have a major voice in the governance of this revolution we call the Internet."

See also Auerbach's platform.

ICANN's endorsement period for potential At-Large candidates is almost over. Three candidates have clear leads, but there's still time if you haven't endorsed anyone. Lots more below.

(You have read the background, haven't you?)

The total number of At-Large members who have "activated" their PINs in North America is just over 10,000, so since one of the requirements for nomination is 2% of the members must endorse you, the floor for a successful nomination is just over 200 endorsements. Here are the current stats:

• Karl Auerbach - 473
• Barbara Simons - 351
• Emerson Tiller - 324
• Eric Lee - 96
• Subhash Gupta - 61
• Nick Nicholas - 54
• Robin Bandy - 50

You can see the rather large gap between 3rd and 4th place. Since there are only three spots open on the ballot, Auerbach, Simons and Tiller are looking good to be nominated.

Included below is the Cyber-Federalist, a newsletter covering internet governance issues.

Date sent: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 01:20:42 +0200
To: cyber-federalist@cpsr.org
From: Hans Klein
Subject: CYBER-FEDERALIST NO.5: The ICANN Member Nomination Process

Please forward
********************************************************
CYBER-FEDERALIST No. 5 September 6, 2000

THE ICANN MEMBER NOMINATION PROCESS

Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc)
of
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
(CivSoc of CPSR)
http://www.civsoc.org
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/
http://www.cyber-federalist.org (archive)
********************************************************
The Member Nominations phase of the ICANN elections ends this Friday (September 8). With just a few days left, we can begin to see some likely nominations and some electoral trends.

The most useful website for following the elections is the ICANNnot site, which summarizes each region's election. That site is located at:
http://www.ICANNnot.org
(Many thanks to Mr. Andrew Bloch for creating that site!)

In what follows, I summarize the present state of each regional election and speculate about the future.

EUROPE
======
Europe has had the highest turnout of any region, with over 32% of all activated members voting (21% of all members in the region.) Europe also has the fewest open positions for member nominations -- only 2 of 7, with the other 5 positions already filled by ICANN's nominees.

The two candidates most likely to win a nomination are Andy Mueller-Maguhn and Jeanette Hofmann, both from Germany and both with strong credentials for representing civil society concerns on the ICANN Board. The clear leader is Mueller-Maguhn, with more than twice the endorsements of any other candidate. Mueller-Maguhn is the Speaker of the Chaos Computer Club (www.CCC.de), an organization that promotes issues like privacy and freedom of information. (My German colleagues have uniformly emphasized that the term "chaos" refers to its philosophy of freedom and non-hierarchical organization.)

Jeanette Hofmann is a university-based social scientist who has done extensive studies of the IETF. She is a founding member of the European chapter of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (www.CPSR.org) and a signatory to the Civil Society Statement (www.civilsocietyinternetforum.org).

Two other leading European candidates are Lutz Donnerhacke and Dmitri Bourkov. Donnerhacke is a co-founder of FITUG (www.FITUG.de), which is a member of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (www.GILC.org). With about 800 endorsements, he is only about 250 votes behind the Jeanette Hoffman at the time of this writing. Bourkov, the only non-German candidate with large numbers of endorsements, has a background in the technical areas of network development in Eastern Europe and Russia.

Election data for Europe is available at:
http://www.icannnot.org/icannel.cgi?s=e&r=EU&l=e
An archived discussion forum for Europe is available at:
http://www.fitug.de/icann-europe/index.html


ASIA/AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC
======================
The region with the greatest contrast to Europe is Asia. There, only about 12% of activated members have voted (less than 5% of all Asia regional members.) Asia has three candidate positions still open, but so far only one member has passed the 2% threshold for nomination.

The leading candidate is Hong Jie Li from China, who has over 1000 votes. He has a business background and expresses concerns about business development. Three other candidates each have between 400 and 500 votes. Kuo-Wei Wu, from Taiwan, has a background in the technical and research community and is active in APNIC. Jon Ho Kim, from Korea, is an expert in intellectual property law.

The fourth candidate is Yukika Matsumoto from Japan. She is the only leading Asian candidate to strongly advocate civil society issues. She has worked with NGO's, most notably JCA-NET, which is the Japanese member of the Association for Progressive Communications (www.APC.org). At the time of this writing she has the third-highest number of votes, but has still not passed the 2% threshold needed to win a nomination.

Election data for Asia is available at:
http://www.icannnot.org/icannel.cgi?s=e&r=AP&l=e


NORTH AMERICA
=============
The North American region has three clear leading candidates for its three open positions. All three have strongly supported values of civil society.

Karl Auerbach was a co-founder of the Boston Working Group, which played an important role in ICANN's creation, ensuring that there would be an At Large membership. His extensive reform platform for ICANN can be seen at: http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/platform.htm. Barbara Simons is the former President of the Association for Computing Machinery (www.ACM.org) and founded its Internet Governance Project (http://www.acm.org/serving/IG.html), which supported the work of Kathy Kleiman. Simons is also a long-time member of CPSR. Both Auerbach and Simons have endorsed the Civil Society Statement (Auerbach contributed significantly to its creation.) The third candidate who has also passed the 2% threshold is Emerson Tiller, whose platform supports free speech and open democratic governance of ICANN.

Election data for North America is available at:
http://www.icannnot.org/icannel.cgi


LATIN AMERICA/CARIBBEAN
=======================
In this region one candidate has emerged as a clear leader, although a second person may still pass the 2% limit. With the majority of ICANN members located in Brazil, it is not surprising that both candidates are from that country.

Claudio Silva Menezes has over 800 votes out of a total of 924 at this time. He works for the Banco do Brasil in IT management. In a distant second place is Aluisio Nunes, with 60 votes. He is an independent consultant in strategic management and marketing research.

Election data for Latin America are available at:
http://www.icannnot.org/icannel.cgi?s=e&r=LA&l=e


AFRICA
======
Although only 54 votes have been cast so far in this region, the rates of participation are roughly equivalent to North America. Here the threshold to surpass is the fixed limit of 20 voters. Two of the three candidates are still far below that, with 8 and 6 votes.

The leading candidate here is Calvin Browne of South Africa. He is a director of the corporation managing the .co.za domain name space, which is the South African equivalent of .com. He also has years of experience participating in activities of ICANN and the Internet Society.

Election data for Africa is available at:
http://www.icannnot.org/icannel.cgi?s=e&r=AF&l=e


COMMENTARY
==========
These data allow one to speculate on what the future holds.

Clearly nationalism is a strong factor in these regional elections. In each region, the leading candidates are citizens of the countries with the most voters. The big countries are Brazil, Germany, United States, South Africa, and China and Japan.

In two regions -- Europe and North America -- voters have shown a clear preference for candidates expressing concerns for free speech, privacy, and democracy (what I here call "civil society values.") Every single successful candidate in Europe and North America has advocated civil society values.

For the final elections in North America, where Lawrence Lessig is also a candidate, fully 4 of the 7 Board candidates in October will likely be explicit supporters of such values. (This multiplicity of candidates does not risk splitting the vote and causing them all to lose, because the election rules will allow for the aggregation of votes.)

In Europe, only 2 of the 7 likely candidates in October seem to have a strong background in civil society issues. However, they are both from Germany, the country likely to exercise the greatest influence on outcomes. Thus, 2 of the 3 final German candidates will almost certainly be strong supporters of such values.

In Asia, there is still some chance that one civil society candidate may make it on the ballot -- Yukika Matsumoto. Otherwise, that region's electoral choices in October will largely be among candidates from the industry and technology communities.

In Africa and Latin America, the candidates with the clearest civil society orientation will be those nominated by ICANN. Both of ICANN's African nominees endorsed the Civil Society Statement (see: http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/friends-of-civsoc.html ). One of ICANN's Latin American nominees, Raul Echeberria, also endorsed the Statement and was the recipient of an endorsement from the Association for Progressive Communications (www.APC.org).

Between now and Friday's election deadline, a few questions remain. The biggest question is whether Asia voters will nominate Yukika Matsumoto, the only advocate of privacy, speech, and the public interest who has a chance to get on the ballot. In Europe, Jeanette Hoffman could still lose her position to Lutz Donnerhacke, although support for Hoffman seems to be increasing as the deadline approaches.

The election rules do allow members to switch endorsements. Yukika Matsumoto could still benefit from a last-minute wave of switched endorsements, particularly of other candidates with no prospect of success declare their support for her. That may allow her to pass the 2% threshold.

In October the big question will be whether voter behavior in this phase will be repeated in the October election. Today's voter behavior has been characterized by considerable support for candidates supporting civil society values. If the October elections look like the Member Nomination phase, then new Directors may be elected who will supplement ICANN's current concern with property rights with a concern for speech, privacy, and consumer rights.

The Civil Society Statement is available at:
http://www.CivilSocietyInternetForum.org/


###

Candidates and readers are welcome to comment on this analysis. Comments on the previous Cyber-Federalist, No.4, have been offered by: Vint Cerf, Christoph Weber-Fahr, Carl Malamud, Hans Klein, and David Reed. See: http://www.cyber-federalist.org

=========================================================

CYBER-FEDERALIST is a regularly-published series of analyses and commentaries on Internet governance and ICANN elections. It is produced as part of the Internet Democracy Project. See:
http://www.civsoc.org
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/
http://www.cyber-federalist.org

Subscribe to the CYBER-FEDERALIST!
send an Email to: cyber-federalist-subscribe@cpsr.org

=========================================================

ICANN's elections are now underway. (We've covered this before.) ICANN's Nominating Committee has picked several candidates for each of the five open seats in a closed primary process; now there is a "member nomination" process underway where several more candidates will be selected to run for each seat. Civil liberties groups are actively attempting to promote democratic involvement in ICANN, such as the Civil Society Democracy Project being spearheaded by CPSR. We've asked each of the people seeking to be candidates for the North American region board seat to answer one question; here are the responses we've received. Update: 08/17 14:04 by michael : Two more responses added.

This is equivalent to a "primary" election - it is selecting the people who will run for the election. We are concentrating only on the election for the North American region, since the majority of Slashdot's readership is from this region. ICANN's nominating committee picked four candidates to run for the seat:

• Lyman Chapin
• Donald Langenberg
• Lawrence Lessig
• Harris Miller

and at the last ICANN meeting, it was decided to limit the total candidates for any one seat to seven, so this primary process will pick three additional candidates to run for the seat. A large number of people have thrown their hats in the ring for this process -- here's ICANN's list of candidates seeking member-nomination -- and we asked them all this question:

The Internet Democracy Project (www.internetdemocracyproject.org) and the Civil Society Internet Forum (www.civilsocietyinternetforum.org) have been involved in attempting to promote democracy and representation of individual Internet users at ICANN. The Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections -

http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/Statement_July-13.html

- is an attempt to spell out what attributes are desirable in ICANN from such a perspective.

Distinguishing between 50+ possible candidates, with only one endorsement to cast, is likely to be difficult for ICANN's registered voters. Slashdot has talked with Hans Klein of CPSR (www.cpsr.org) and we feel that a reasonable way to allow the candidates to distinguish between themselves is to ask them an open-ended question:

-- What is your response to the Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections?

What follows are the responses we received, edited only for HTML formatting. If you, as an ICANN registered voter, decide that you'd like to see one of these candidates run for the seat, you can endorse them on the ICANN Web site. Whichever three candidates receive the most endorsements (and are endorsed by more than 2% of the voter pool, and from at least two countries) will be on the ballot for the real election, which begins Sept. 1. You may change your endorsement before Sept. 1 by simply endorsing a different candidate. The candidate listing displays a running total of endorsements.

Clear enough? On to the candidates! These responses are listed in the order they were received.

Teri Powell

[Editor's note: Teri Powell informs me she has withdrawn from the ICANN election. --michael]

I have participated heavily and strongly re: ICANN issues on the Public Forums.

I have read and fully understand the position paper you reference. This has been evidenced in my opinions already expressed via any route I can. With this in mind, I have to admit the following: I can Not say it any better than as the Actual Statement linked below.

This will be short and sweet. I will reference (as a link) the Statement which I Totally Agree with.
http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/Statement_July-13.html

My web site can be found at:
http://www.brittany-technologies.com

The Prime Objective is to get Proper Representation onto the ICANN Board which Will Reflect ALL Internet Users.

My Very Best to the Other Candidates! I Believe the At Large Members Will Choose Wisely. I Will Support Whoever is chosen since this will, at least, be a Start in Representation for Us. Liz Bartlett

My candidate page can be found at http://www.khyri.com/icann/ and contains the information on my ICANN page, together with expanded sections on my qualification, background and viewpoints. I intend to add relevent content and links to it at intervals, so feel free to bookmark and return.

1. I strongly believe that ICANN must represent all. I feel I can represent many interests, being female and having lived in England, France and (currently) the U.S.A. I am heavily involved in web accessibility issues, making sure that web content is available to everyone regardless of physical disability, method of accessing the Internet, or level of technology.

2. I have had indirect experience of organizations whose leadership have resisted such transparency, and I know that this mentality is a fast road to destruction. I have always held the view that information must be shared with all interested parties, unless there are very good reasons to withhold it.

3. One of the strongest bases for an organization such as ICANN is the strength of its core membership. I believe the board should be drawn from the membership, that the board should then exercise the proper oversight of the staff, and that the ICANN staff should not be employed from the ranks of board members in order to maintain a proper employee-employer relationship.

4. I believe that only in the clearest cases of intentional misleading or profit motivation should the "first come, first served" domain name policy be overturned.

5. I do not have strong views on the organizational split of IP address and DNS root server management. I feel this issues are best solved on a "what is technically best" basis.

6. I do not believe governmental control over domain name space can be a practical solution, given the global nature of the internet, the increasing abuse of the two-letter country codes, and the absence of a global government.

7. I am strongly against artifical scarcity of names. However, I am ambivalent on the decentralizing of some functions, as I realize that the independent operation of many registration/name lookup/routing functions can cause technical chaos. However I feel, (maybe naively) that it must be possible to retain a single, core central registry without giving any individual, organization or company the temptation of "abuse of power". I see no great problem with the current system.

8. Privacy policies as generally adopted by organizations that hold elections should apply to all ICANN operations.

9. The costs of participating in ICANN activities, and the costs that ICANN itself incurs in its operations should be kept as economically low as possible. Expenses should be looked at with a view to "does this further the ICANN objective" before approval. Adam L. Beberg

I believe the first 3 values aim at something deeper which is that the membership base needs to be informed and educated about the issues they will vote on. Any issue that the members must decide needs to include the technical details, as well as a pro and con argument, all translated into multiple languages. The membership also needs to remain vigilant of the things happening in ICANN that have a public effect, and this can only be done with complete information.

One problem I have seen emerging due to ICANN's relatively few issues to deal with, but of high complexity and with extended impact, is that of "if I can get 50 non-technical friends to sign up, I can tell them all how to vote because they cannot understand the geekspeak". This is just as dangerous as the commercial makeup of the DNSOs, but far more insidious. Unfortunately this will probably be the operating mode for the At Large membership base.

Trademark laws as a social convention are an important thing if people are to know who they are dealing with, and that others with be prevented from pretending to be someone they are not. That said, I don't see how domain names or IP numbers affect free expression or privacy, other then the help privacy by limiting pretenders. Governments do not need ICANN's help to limit freedoms.

The scarcity of domains of any kind is completely artificial, and should be reduced or removed. Any TLD should be allowed, and is technically possible, but should be subject to some critical mass (N people want TLD .xyz) to avoid all domains turning into TLDs. Since other TLD's are not scarce, ccTLD's being a pain to get, if not scarce, doesn't seem to be a large problem. The ccTLD registrars must compete next to the generic registrars, and the market will eliminate the inefficient and unresponsive registrars. ICANN does need to take a role to insure that domain owners can easily change registrars, without hassle or loss/theft of their domains, which several registrars now prevent. Emerson Tiller

I will address each of the guiding principles put forth by the Civil Society.

1. ICANN must be representative.

I agree. In fact, I propose that:

• the majority (not just 9), if not all, of the board members should be elected by the at-large membership.
• Email, fax, and regular mail member registrations should be accepted. Registration should be 1-step.
• ICANN members should enjoy the protections of being members under California's non-profit laws.

Note that, for months, I have engaged in a public information campaign to increase and broaden the ICANN membership (http://www.icannvote.com).

2. ICANN must be transparent.

Absolutely.

3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes.

I agree. I suggest that petition processes be allowed to bring issues up for a membership wide vote. The membership should also vote on whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) passed in 1999 should be reauthorized.

4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights.

Political, religious, anonymous, and other forms of free speech, as they reveal themselves in domain names or other web content, should be accorded equal standing with intellectual property rights.

5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics.

I agree. However, we should recognize the in an electronic age, technical decisions produce policy results, and thus in some sense the technical decisions are often policy decisions (much like decisions on process often determine the policy). Rather than ignoring this critical relationship, we would be better off to acknowledge the connection, and then be specific about which technology-driven policy areas ICANN should and should not involve itself. Any expansion of policy making should be authorized by both broad membership voting and broader international representation on the board.

6. The domain name space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions.

I agree. And the more we can open the TLD space, the more effectively these multiple uses can be met.

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.

I believe that the expansion of the domain name space through the creation of new TLD registries should be one of ICANN's highest priorities. To the extent centralization occurs, or is necessary, it should be legitimized by broad public approval and international representation.

8. ICANN must respect privacy.

I agree. ICANN should avoid technical/policy decisions that compromise anonymity and the security of personal information.

9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.

And shared fairly among all countries, on condition that they have a fair chance at representation on the ICANN board and enjoy the services that ICANN performs.

Final Comments: ICANN is not beyond repair. There are a lot of good people who have worked to make it a forum that responds to the new demands of the Internet society. But ICANN is in need of restructuring, both in terms of process (election procedures, for example) and substance (the UDRP, for example). My platform: http://64.82.55.205/tiller.html. Barbara Simons

I state on my election web page http://barbara.simons.org/:

"I support the values enunciated by the Civil Society Internet Forum. These include 'democratic participation in decision-making, open processes, the right to communicate, and a fair balance between rights of privacy, speech, consumers, and property in Internet governance'. I shall work to defend privacy, speech, and the needs and rights of the smaller players; I sincerely hope that the other candidates will demonstrate their support for these important principles."

I also signed the Civil Society Internet Forum Mission Statement in Yokohama. (See http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/csif/signatories.html).

I am very pleased that you are asking this question of all the candidates. I hope that people will honestly state whether or not they will support the Civil Society principles. My support is public and long standing.

On my web page I also pledge to:

• be accessible and responsive to the members of the at-large community,
• create an advisory group of experts in technological, policy, economics, and the law,
• work to build a decision-making process that is open and inclusive.

The decisions made by the ICANN Board during the next few years will have a major impact on the speech and freedom on the Internet. I have a history of fighting for speech, privacy, and open access. My web page contains links to several policy articles I have written on these topics. Among other actions, I have:

• testified before a Senate subcommittee in favor of the legislation that would significantly reduce export controls on encryption,
• worked to defeat the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
• spoken out and written letters in opposition to UCITA,
• opposed attempts to censor the Internet,
• submitted a supporting declaration for the defense in the New York DVD trial (See http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0503-reply.html#Simons),
• fought efforts to establish wide-spread monitoring by law enforcement of the Internet,
• worked to support privacy.

My support for the right to anonymity on the Internet is reflected in my membership on the Advisory Board of ZeroKnowledge Systems Inc.

I hope that the readers of Slashdot will read my statement on the ICANN web page and the material I have posted on my web site. If anyone has comments or suggestions, he or she can reach me at simons@acm.org. Karl Auerbach

I helped write it - I think its a darn fine statement. ;-)

(One can compare it to my rather long set of views as expressed on my election web page at http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/ )

ICANN as it is now constructed and operated seems to be premised on the notion that the Internet is there for the benefit of commercial interests and that ICANN ought to treat those who "merely" use the Internet as babes in the woods who can't be trusted to make decisions and who need paternalistic protection.

The Civil Society Statement is, to my mind, a roadmap of how ICANN can return to a more balanced state - so that the users of the Internet will be respected as people who can make their own decisions about their own interests.

Governance is hard. And ICANN is undertaking something new and difficult. ICANN cripples itself by creating a body of people who feel that they have been disenfranchised. The Civil Society Statement is a reminder to ICANN that it has forgotten to be inclusive of all those who believe they have role in these matters.

If you compare the Civil Society Statement with my own platform, you will see that I have gone rather further in certain areas - particularly with regard to procedures and ICANN structure. It is very much my belief that inclusive processes - even if they appear somewhat more chaotic than today's ICANN staff choreographed dictates - are at least as important as any substantive policy decision.

As a practical matter, whoever wins the election for a board seat is going to be but one person out of 19. So any single candidate's platform is probably not going to become fact, at least not immediately. ICANN's staff has become so entrenched and has taken control of the corporation so completely, that reform of ICANN is going to be a major effort. The Civil Society Statement serves as something we can always look to to see whether ICANN is improving.

Tom Lowenhaupt

Guiding Value 1. ICANN must be representative.

The ICANN needs to represent all of the Internet's current users - not just business interests.

But more than this, the ICANN needs to acknowledge the immense impact the Internet has on all people, and it needs to reserve representation space for those not yet on the net. When America was young it excluded women, workers, and African salves from its representation system. Let's learn from the 150 year struggle to remedy that stupidity. Let's set aside representation space now.

But representation on the ICANN is not a simple matter. How do you represent 5 billion people? I don't have all the answers to this question, but I began my search by asking the following. Who runs the military? Who sets water and air pollution standards? Who determines the direction and usage rules for our roadways? It's not the army or the air and highway bureaucrats. It's civil society - you and me. (Or at least it should be!)

Business might own the net, but it's you and me that pump in the cash that allows them to operate. Let's take control and make sure the net's something that's good for our families and good for our communities.

Guiding Value 2. ICANN must be transparent.
Guiding Value 3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes.

The ICANN's operation and its decision making process must be transparent and inviting to the public. Issues should be framed and brought to the public within a context and with comprehendible background information. Everyone should have the opportunity to comment on upcoming decisions using online forums, listservers, and polling systems.

Guiding Value 4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights.
Guiding Value 8. ICANN must respect privacy.

First and foremost the net should be about communication that empowers the individual. It shouldn't be turned into TV 2. When intellectual property rights are treated with undue importance, our access to information and our privacy rights are reduced.

Guiding Value 5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics.

Rapid growth and technologic change guarantees a tumultuous future for the net. Unsettling developments will be thrown into the ICANN's waiting lap on a regular basis. And human nature will have the organization's employees accreting power.

So I support an open governance system with separation of powers and independent review mechanisms.

Guiding Value 6. The domain name space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions.
Guiding Value 7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.

There needn't be any shortage in the domain name space. Look at Karl Auerbach's page for a discussion this. (Karl's also an At Large candidate, see his page at http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/).

An acknowledged expert in the field, Karl's proposed adding 10,000 new names - per year. He says the net should be able to support somewhere between 1,000,000 - 7,000,000 new TLDs.

IP numbers need to the distributed equitably, with set asides for future net users.

Guiding Value 9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.

I agree that we should keep costs to a minimum - who wouldn't? But good governance doesn't come cheep. If you want an open decision making process, you need qualified and well paid employees to create and present balanced presentations. You need good systems to keep the communication channels opened. And you need checks and balances to prevent centralization of power and undue influences by a moneyed class.

The money to pay for the net's operation is coming out of our pockets - ain' t no two ways about it. Let's invest our pennies in a governance system that empowers its users and respects their privacy.

I'll conclude by saying, "Vote for me and I'll do my best to see that the net works for us all." Ted Phipps

The CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT ON ICANN ELECTIONS addresses 7 guiding values.
I will discuss each in turn.

1. Representation.

ICANN should mirror the people it represents. There needs to be a better balance between technical/non-technical capabilities. I've been involved with advanced IT aviation systems. However, it's my capabilities in understanding and handling international issues that ICANN is most short of.

2. Transparency.

We demand this from 'public for-profit' companies, why would we expect anything less from a 'non-profit?'

3. Bottom-up processes.

ICANN must be of the members, by the members and for the members. Directors must be diligent in protecting your interests. If they don't, then not only should they be removed; but 'you' have an obligation to remove them. This is your global village, not theirs!

4. Intellectual property rights.

Throughout history, property issues have been at the forefront of any new frontier. Interestingly, this virtual property issue was dealt with in 1776. It's roots evolved out of Englishman John Locke's Treatise on Civil Government. Locke identified three rights: life, liberty and property. Jefferson took property a step further. He replaced the word property with "the right to pursuit of happiness." Jefferson wanted to make certain that the rights were not limited to land. In effect, Jefferson made a momentous step toward recognizing virtual rights. James Madison cemented the concept when he said we must "equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights." [Madison went on to list some virtual property examples in a 1792 essay].

For speculators, there are rights in property. For the trademark holder there's property in rights. ICANN must balance these rights. Fortunately, there is a solution- release more gTLD's under different classifications.

5. Policy-making.

The 'White Paper' identifies 4 guiding principles: stability, competition, bottom-up coordination and representation. The directors should follow this course.

6. Domain-space.

I agree that, multiple, parallel and overlapping TLDs registries for various stakeholders should not be excluded from the root. This is not only the basis of a vibrant society, but an empowered one.

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization.

We don't need a DeBeers of the Internet. Holding gTLD's back is like building trade barriers - no one wins! Releasing new gTLDs is good for trademark holders, good for ebusiness, and good for the global village as a whole.

8. Privacy.

Information must flow freely across borders. This goes without saying for private users. For commercial users, ICANN's policies and procedures should adhere to Fair Information Practices. A good starting point is the OECD Privacy Guidelines. This policy actually makes life easier since companies' wouldn't have to guess whether they're violating a 'human rights' law.

9. Costs.

ICANN's operations should be transparent. If fees are charged they should be limited to commercial users. I polled the board members of ColorMeHome.com. They agree, as I believe most companies do: that it is better for businesses to contribute, than limit any individuals' access. Eric Grimm

Thank you for this chance to introduce myself and my candidacy to /. In response to your question, the Civil Society Statement reinforces and corroborates my opinion that the ICANN at-large elections, while certainly a welcome development, still are too little, too late. They only represent the first step toward reintroducing ideals of open and equitable decision-making -- including broad-based and fair representation of all interests, transparency, democracy, and freedom - into Internet governance generally and ICANN in particular.

I fully support the ideals of transparency, freedom and democracy not only in this context, but in other trans-national contexts, such as trade regulation, which should serve the long-term interests of the world's population as a whole, including future generations, and not the narrow interests of a tiny minority residing principally in industrial countries.

Following the ICANN vote, representatives of corporate power still will command super-majorities both on the ICANN Board and on every ICANN subcommittee. Therefore, the first at-large representatives will have to shoulder tremendous responsibility to keep things moving in the right direction. The costs of the status quo are already too evident. For example, the dispute resolution process that ICANN has established *COULD* have been designed to be fair and to promote impartiality, and should have included the following simple and obvious safeguards of fairness:

• Respondents should have the right to exercise a peremptory "strike" against the complainant's initial choice of forum. At present, the multiple Fora (WIPO, NAF) have every economic incentive to cater solely to the interests of trademark complainants, because they realize that complainants alone have the choice as to where the arbitration business will go. Respondents, at present, have no choice whatsoever in the process. Complainants naturally will select among fora based on their perception that, with respect to the issues in their particular case, one forum or another happens to be the most biased and unfair in complainants' favor. I have even had counsel for complainants admit this to me directly in particular cases that I have defended.
• Both complainants and respondents should have the right to exercise a limited number of peremptory "strikes" against individual arbitrators, whose track record demonstrates that they disregard the law and clearly fail to measure up to the standard of objectivity and impartiality. Yet, the people in control of ICANN omitted this important and obvious procedural safeguard.
• Complainants should be required, as a condition of invoking the ICANN dispute resolution process, to post a monetary bond, in case the complaint turns out to represent a bad-faith effort to engage in extortion, theft, and "reverse domain name piracy." Defending such a case is expensive, and the process was intended only to be invoked in "clear-cut" cases. In cases where the complainant has initiated arbitration in bad faith or for extortionate purposes, the arbitral panel should have broad discretion to compensate the respondent for the financial burden of defending a frivolous case.
• Each of the arbitration providers - like judges and courts in most forward-thinking jurisdictions - should be forbidden from commenting outside the arbitral process (i.e., to the press) on the merits of pending cases. They certainly should be prohibited from issuing press releases for the evident purpose of trying to drum up more business from new complainants by obliquely promising to "evict" respondents as often as can be managed. Specific press releases issued by more than one of the current arbitration service providers create a clear appearance of impropriety, and arguably constitute conclusive evidence of actual impropriety.
• The process should have a more robust mechanism for appeal from, and correction of, erroneous decisions. Also necessary is a mechanism for removing individual arbitrators who demonstrate a persistent inability to apply the rules fairly, and as those rules were written and intended to be applied. Even the most cursory examination of the output of the two most popular tribunals shows that their decisions are all over the map. Most decisions are mutually irreconcilable with one another. The ICANN process, as it is currently working, more resembles a random "domain name lottery" than a legitimate and balanced effort to administer fair rules in a consistent manner.

The problems with the status quo are also evident from both (1) the unnecessary and counterproductive delay in introducing new Top Level Domains, and (2) the proposed - arbitrary and unnecessary - barrier to entry of a $50,000 payment in order even to apply to establish a new Top Level Domain.

This is not to say that I believe that commerce is "bad," or that I am opposed to trademark law, or that I have any desire to banish commerce from the Internet. Quite the contrary, I strongly favor the application of TRADITIONAL principles of trademark law, within appropriate contexts. I firmly oppose the unnecessary EXPANSION of IP rights, however, and will fight to roll back the special rights that trademark owners have demanded. I also strongly favor commerce on the Internet -- both by small business as well as by big business. However, commerce is not entitled to a special place among the pantheon of Internet constituencies, and should assume its proper place among all constituencies of the Internet community as a whole.

In short, after reviewing the Civil Society Statement, I wholeheartedly agree with it and promise, if elected, to uphold every single principle listed in the document. I also pledge to work continuously to ensure that the process of democratization and open governance continues to move forward, rather than stagnating or moving in counterproductive directions.

A short biography is probably in order. I am an attorney who specializes in Internet law (including privacy, First Amendment, trademark, encryption, online commerce, and other issues). I represent clients from many different countries, with multiple perspectives on many of these issues (but never any clients in whose causes I do not believe). I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and practice in courtrooms all over the United States. I have experience working for the United States government, as well as for a state Supreme Court, for a large law firm that represents multinational corporations, and for a federal trial court judge. At present, however, I work in a small firm setting by choice principally because of the autonomy it gives me to choose to take positions because I believe in them, and not because a large client representation requires me to subordinate my principles to "the firm's" financial interests.

I have both the time and desire to contribute constructively to improving ICANN and Internet governance, and I thank all of you who choose to give me the opportunity to serve your interests as your ICANN at-large representative. John Alexander

At the outset, I should note that I strongly support the efforts of the CPSR, and the Internet Democracy Project, to keep our civil rights in the forefront at this formative stage of international internet governance. Bodies such as ICANN have a natural tendency to be driven by the most substantive financial interests in a controversy more strongly than by such notions as free speech and diversity.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Yokohama Statement's preamble. Indeed, ICANN must consider how its actions impact the global exercise of free speech and association, as well as the ability of those in the minority to take their places at the internet table.

In fact, this notion not only describes my own deeply-held beliefs, but also my very rationale for volunteering my most valuable asset - time and expertise - to the task of internet domain governance.

My online ICANN candidate statement and web page - http://www.netgaincc.com/icann - give more detail on my professional background and training. I have a great deal of experience as a journalist, attorney and, for the past four years, web designer. Throughout, I have donated my time to the assistance and representation of those whose civil rights have been threatened - in the arenas of federal and state court, and the internet. My company, Net Gain Communications Consultants, designed and hosted the website for a leading affirmative action organization founded by Martin Luther King III, as one example.

Most of the nine issues articulated in the Yokohama Statement describe values over which I suspect there may little debate, if just as little current compliance, by ICANN.

For example, ICANN President Mike Roberts likely would not argue with the second proposition, that ICANN must operate transparent to public scrutiny. Yet the group is woefully deficient in communicating the substance of ongoing issues and proposed resolutions to the impacted internet public with sufficient time to secure meaningful response from all factions.

That is why the first "plank" of my "platform" is Communication: I pledge a commitment of my own time and expertise to ensuring ICANN communicates in a more complete and timely fashion, using with some degree of sophistication the very technology it seeks to regulate. I feel well suited to do this, given my background in journalism, law and the web.

I cannot claim complete consonance with the Yokohama Statement, however. Some of the language is so vague as to be nothing more than the start of a conversation about the topic, while other particulars are simply off-course. For example, within principal number five, the proposition regarding separation of IP address and DNS root server management would simply complicate an otherwise complex process with more bureaucracy serving no reasonable purpose. The stated goal of "decentralizing authority" really does not articulate a valid reason for this move.

While I could take issue with several specifics of this sort, I think what is important is that I generally support the goals of the Yokohama Statement, and of the CPSR. If elected an at-large director, I will listen carefully to the CPSR's views on all issues before ICANN. Robin Bandy

While I certainly think that the CPSR Statement points in the correct direction, I also think that it ignores a few fundamental issues and, on the important issues it does address, it does not go far enough. The focus of most of the Statement can be grouped under the broad heading of "Democratic Representation", and as such they miss a few important considerations.

First and most important, is that ICANN (as a company incorporated under American, and Californian, law) cannot actually be representative of a global usership. ICANN's freedom to structure itself is proscribed by American and Californian laws governing the organization and operation of non-profit corporations and its actual existence is dependant upon the sufferance of these two governments, either of which could revoke its corporate existence at will. An organization so dependant on one country cannot, and should not be expected to, represent the users from or residing in other countries. By ICANN's control of the default DNS root it also illegitimately extends the jurisdiction of American and Californian law to governing interactions between Americans in other states and between citizens or residents of other countries.

While transparency and openness are obvious necessities of a democratic structure, CPSR also does not extend their call for a more democratic ICANN to including procedures for member initiative and referendum nor for member initiated recall of elected Board members, all features of any truly democratic system.

Additionally, a truly democratic ICANN should have no representation of government or corporate interests. Governments and corporations are already representative organizations, the first represent their citizens and the second represent their owners; these interests are already represented by the voting members who are also constituents of governments and corporations. To allow the U.S. government, for example, a representative in ICANN is to multiply the votes of the U.S. ICANN members by giving them two Board members (one shared with Canada and one of their own) while devaluing the votes of all non-American members. To allow NSI or CORE, to take another example, representation is to grant the owners of the corporation, as individuals, vastly greater influence than all other individual members. These are clearly not democratic scenarios, as they are basically the same as if R.J. Reynolds or any other special-interest lobbying group were given a direct seat in the U.S. Congress, but they are the essence of how ICANN now functions.

That CPSR calls for opening the current monolithic DNS root to a collaborative root shared between the ICANN and alternative namespaces is marvelous. In my capacity as a root server maintainer with the OpenNIC, I have been involved in discussing exactly that with several of the existing alternates and obviously am fully in support of that scenario. Though we have already begun discussions with several Linux and BSD distributions about the possibility of their installers supporting the alternative roots, we would obviously much prefer that the current root also support them.

That they also call for an end to the artificial domain name scarcity is also good, but I think they don't consider exactly how it needs to be managed. Simply adding new generic Top-Level Domains (TLDs) would not help solve another of their concerns, that of the over-focus on "Intellectual Property" (i.e. trademark) concerns. By implementing new TLDs with well defined charters, such as the .parody TLD served by OpenNIC, the trademark concerns can be properly confined to appropriately chartered TLDs, leaving space available for parody, criticism and personal sites which would be free from the current ever- present threat of trademark lawsuits. By chartering a geographic series of TLDs, trademark concerns could also be confined to their appropriate geographical regions rather than, as the current system does, allowing conflicts between properly registered trademarks in various countries and regions.

Since Slashdot asked us to keep these down to around 500 words, and I've already gone over that, here are a few additional informational links:

• My Candidacy page
• The OpenNIC, an alternative namespace which, I think, provides a good model

Sondlo Leonard Mhlaba

Response to Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections
by Sondlo Leonard Mhlaba, PhD

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Civil Society Statement of July 13, 2000.

I have followed the work of CPSR for several years and, more recently, have benefited from the work of the Democracy Project. It should, therefore, come as no surprise to many that I support the nine Guiding Values of the Civil Society Statement. I do have some reservations about some details in Values 1, 7, and 8.

Value #1: Representativeness. The basis of my questions and my perspective on this item can best be appreciated through the mission of The New Franchise Institute at http://www.NewFranchise.Org which I am currently building . I see development of the internet as a momentous event in the history of the world. In 500 Years of Eurocentric Diplomacy: Prospects for the 21st Century (1999), I dared to suggest that the internet may become as integral to human life as the heavy coat is to the polar bear. Looked at in this light, the internet has the potential to separate "internet haves" from the "internet have-nots" so far apart as to constitute separate species. I am a naturalized American citizen and Zimbabwe native, having come to the US in the mid-60s. From where I sit, therefore, the work of ICANN and all the parties to internet development, is epoch-making.

In light of the above perspective, I believe that, at some point, ICANN needs to re-examine how the world is divided for purposes of representation. Should, for example, representatives be assigned in proportion to the at-large members, or in proportion to the population of the region (irrespective of the level of internet participation)? Readers may know that of the 58,000 at-large registrants for the purposes of this up-coming election, only 1,000 came from the Continent of Africa. How should language and the attendant worldview be factored in? A year ago, according to a study cited in my book, about 58% of internet communication was in English and 83% was in European languages. In the long term, I believe that a Eurocentric, and North-American dominated internet is not in our (North America's) political, civic, or economic interest. The North American representative must provide a more globalist, and future-oriented perspective, as he or she endevors to be responsive to his or her North American internet constituency.

Value #7. I believe that some domain name categories ought to be reserved for civic and governmental entities, while other categories are left to the market. Cyber-squatting and the after-market ought to be disallowed in the governmental and civic categories. However, I believe that cyber-squatting and related market techniques should be allowed in the market category. In order for this distinction to work in the interest of the general public, a great deal of care would, of course, need to go into defining the two categories.

Value #8: I support respect for privacy, but I also realize that there are differences among cultures as to what level of privacy is necessary or adequate. I believe that some of the OECD prescriptions, if they become a world standard, could dampen critical debate in the civic arena and complicate normal international market activity.

My major problem with Value # 8 is in the area of member voting. I strongly believe that ICANN board member voting must be open, and not through secret ballot. I think at-large members must be able to hold board members accountable for their votes, and a secret ballot process is inimical to the concept of transparency (Value # 2). Marty Freeman

As far as the Cival Society sataement, I agree completly. I think they sould have included some links or examples, however, to information sugsting that ICANN is not working in the manner it should. www.WIPO.org.uk (World Intelectual Piracy Orginization) has some more info. and examples.

Reading the statement did help me realize the depth of the problem though. The internet is so interseting and usefull because of the content provided by its users. If it becomes too dificult for someone to set up a server and give it an easy to find address, then the internet will loose the very thing everyone loves it for -- ridiculous ammounts of usefull, useless, interesting and funny information. It will become a homogonized channel for the distribution of U.S. corporate propaganda. That sucks. I don't want surfing the internet to be like watching TV. I am really glad to have a chance to change things and hope for at least a chance to be on the final ballot. I would like to note that the ICANN has put the 158,000 people who actually managed to sign up in a tight position. They have only two weeks to decide among the candidates for their area. Plus, the first few people to gain enough support in a area are the only ones to make it. That seams sort of unfair. On one hand you have to study info on 50 people and decide who is best for the job, on the other, you have to decide quickly which candidate to vote for, or all the slots may already be full. This is one of the first things I would change. It makes more sense for the top supported few to make it than the first few to get 2% of the total support. Anyway, thanks for giving me a chance to voice my oppenion. I hope you will all make an informed and responsible decision. Chris Stewart

The Civil Society's "Statement On ICANN Elections" addresses a number of issues that are quite popular amongst candidates seeking member-nomination. The paper focuses on a need for transparency, proportionate representation, fundamental rights, and the "bottom-up" process of administration. However, I am extremely disappointed that, once again consumer rights issues are not mentioned in the context of purchasing, owning, selling, or the security of a domain name.

As well, the paper does not address the need for ICANN to review its accreditation process, or the continued technical and administrative negligence of registrars. It is also disconcerting to conclude that the Civil Society opposes the current practice of selling, renting, or leasing a domain name in excess of its original registration cost incurred by the registrant. The following point taken from the paper's "Guiding Values" supports this conclusion,

Section 7. Artificial Scarcity and Centralization Should Be Avoided

"The use of domain names as a marketing device to index content creates excessive value in domain names and creates disincentives to innovation."

The Civil Society also argues that a "scarcity in domain names creates opportunities for control". However, the solution to this "artificial" scarcity should not be, as suggested by the paper, an unconstrained expansion of the Internet domain name space.

It can be agreed that a greater number of new gTLDs would benefit consumers by potentially reducing registration costs and allowing an increased selection of domains and registrars. However, it is irresponsible to ignore the incidents of technical and administrative negligence that currently hounds registrars and the domain registration/ownership process. These are the issues that need to be addressed prior to any consideration of an "unconstrained" expansion. I refer to two examples of registrar negligence and the lack of accountability on their behalf in the following two articles.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,32974,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2615087,00.html

Consumers want a system that will allow them to purchase a domain, maintain its security via an accredited registrar, use the domain in any context they wish without restrictions that impede upon their civil liberties, and the right to profit from the use or sale of that domain. This paper does not address these fundamental concerns with any conviction.

The Civil Society does however appeal to the interests of the Internet community in many aspects of the statement. The need for proportionate representation rather than "democracy deficit", and the minimization or avoidance of ICANN policy-making on non-technical topics are extremely favourable arguments. The latter of the two directly refers to policies such as the UDRP, which has attempted to handcuff the abuse of trademark infringement in the domain registration environment.

However, the paper does not comment on the use of the arbitration system (such as the WIPO) in order to settle disputes. This system has been fraught with negative response from domain name owners and the media alike. The absence of support for or against this system of dispute resolution is unsettling. Decisions from this arbitration panel have been inconsistent, extremely unfair, and unjust in many of the cases, suggesting that the scope of the UDRP has been abused and sometimes ignored altogether. I offer the following site, which addresses some of the specific cases. http://www.domainshame.com/

To view the issues I feel need to be addressed in this election, please visit http://www.iknowicann.com

Sincerely, Christopher Stewart Lee Fulmer

I fully endorse and support the intent of the Civil Society's statement on the ICANN elections.

It seems that since its inception, the internet has been driven by government and corporate interests. I think that ICANN needs to be fully transparent in its operation and accountable to the entire internet community. One of the most important tasks ICANN faces is to deal with the current problems of "scarcity" of domain space by clamping down on speculators and creating new gTLDs. It is equally important the ICANN is representative of the internet community and should include equal representation from all regions as well as from all interest groups (business, government, academia and individuals).

As an individual who has lived and worked in North America, Europe and Australasia across all the interest groups, I feel I have a unique perspective I can contribute to the process. The domain space should be more distributed among the registrars to help keep costs (including ICANN's) down. I certainly don't expect to paid for my work and I would strive to ensure that a balance between public, private, and personal interests is taken.

Please read my candidacy statement on the ICANN site at http://members.icann.org/nom/cp/47.html and visit my site at http://www.fulmer.com/ before you case your vote! Patrick D'Acre

The issues raised by the Internet Democracy white paper have significant merit. As such, they would need to be included in a larger conversation, involving activated participants, with the intention of finding the middle ground. The 'revisionist' approach to providing a 'FREE Internet' for every person, hints at some policies of the past (e.g. Commerce Secretary Hoover in the 20's).

For the Internet to progress, and be made available to the largest population, business practices are mandatory. And attempt to revert to the origins of the Internet would be woefully out of place and inadvertantly restrict access to the most deserving.

I can appreaciate some of the points in the white paper, yet look for more 'centrist' approaches to implementing those same objectives.

For information on my interests see http://www.letsdobizradio.bizland.com/personal/resume.htm. Laurie Williams

1. ICANN must be representative--Agree. Further, consideration should be given to not only developing countries, but also to developing areas within developed countries. For example, interests of those in rural Oklahoma, North Dakota, or in the furthest reaches of Canada, may be more aligned with those of a remote island or developing country, than with the metropolitan areas of the USA or Canada.

2. ICANN must be transparent--Agree.

3. ICANN must use bottom-up process--Agree

4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights--ICANN should foster collaboration and cooperation instead of creating antagonism and divisiveness. Domains are not synonymous with trademarks--otherwise the system would have been called the TNS (Trademark Name Service) and not the DNS (Domain Name Service).

5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics--Agree.

6. The domain space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions--Agree.

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided--Agree, with the caveat that the technical efficacy of the internet should be guaranteed before expansion and diffusion is promoted. Further, registrars should continue to enhance their processes to streamline the needs of clients. In addition, registrars, portals, and search engines should expand to include more effective searches for domain names.

8. ICANN must respect privacy--Agree.

9. Costs should be minimal and equitable--Agree. In addition, the Berkman Center does an excellent job in providing remote participation of ICANN meetings. Emphasis should be placed on enhanced technology to make ICANN webcasts even better in the future so that individuals without the resources of large companies, can participate more effectively.

-->

-->

-->

-->

ICANN's elections are now underway. (We've covered this before.) ICANN's Nominating Committee has picked several candidates for each of the five open seats in a closed primary process; now there is a "member nomination" process underway where several more candidates will be selected to run for each seat. Civil liberties groups are actively attempting to promote democratic involvement in ICANN, such as the Civil Society Democracy Project being spearheaded by CPSR. We've asked each of the people seeking to be candidates for the North American region board seat to answer one question; here are the responses we've received. Update: 08/17 14:04 by michael : Two more responses added.

This is equivalent to a "primary" election - it is selecting the people who will run for the election. We are concentrating only on the election for the North American region, since the majority of Slashdot's readership is from this region. ICANN's nominating committee picked four candidates to run for the seat:

• Lyman Chapin
• Donald Langenberg
• Lawrence Lessig
• Harris Miller

and at the last ICANN meeting, it was decided to limit the total candidates for any one seat to seven, so this primary process will pick three additional candidates to run for the seat. A large number of people have thrown their hats in the ring for this process -- here's ICANN's list of candidates seeking member-nomination -- and we asked them all this question:

The Internet Democracy Project (www.internetdemocracyproject.org) and the Civil Society Internet Forum (www.civilsocietyinternetforum.org) have been involved in attempting to promote democracy and representation of individual Internet users at ICANN. The Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections -

http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/Statement_July-13.html

- is an attempt to spell out what attributes are desirable in ICANN from such a perspective.

Distinguishing between 50+ possible candidates, with only one endorsement to cast, is likely to be difficult for ICANN's registered voters. Slashdot has talked with Hans Klein of CPSR (www.cpsr.org) and we feel that a reasonable way to allow the candidates to distinguish between themselves is to ask them an open-ended question:

-- What is your response to the Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections?

What follows are the responses we received, edited only for HTML formatting. If you, as an ICANN registered voter, decide that you'd like to see one of these candidates run for the seat, you can endorse them on the ICANN Web site. Whichever three candidates receive the most endorsements (and are endorsed by more than 2% of the voter pool, and from at least two countries) will be on the ballot for the real election, which begins Sept. 1. You may change your endorsement before Sept. 1 by simply endorsing a different candidate. The candidate listing displays a running total of endorsements.

Clear enough? On to the candidates! These responses are listed in the order they were received.

Teri Powell

[Editor's note: Teri Powell informs me she has withdrawn from the ICANN election. --michael]

I have participated heavily and strongly re: ICANN issues on the Public Forums.

I have read and fully understand the position paper you reference. This has been evidenced in my opinions already expressed via any route I can. With this in mind, I have to admit the following: I can Not say it any better than as the Actual Statement linked below.

This will be short and sweet. I will reference (as a link) the Statement which I Totally Agree with.
http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/Statement_July-13.html

My web site can be found at:
http://www.brittany-technologies.com

The Prime Objective is to get Proper Representation onto the ICANN Board which Will Reflect ALL Internet Users.

My Very Best to the Other Candidates! I Believe the At Large Members Will Choose Wisely. I Will Support Whoever is chosen since this will, at least, be a Start in Representation for Us. Liz Bartlett

My candidate page can be found at http://www.khyri.com/icann/ and contains the information on my ICANN page, together with expanded sections on my qualification, background and viewpoints. I intend to add relevent content and links to it at intervals, so feel free to bookmark and return.

1. I strongly believe that ICANN must represent all. I feel I can represent many interests, being female and having lived in England, France and (currently) the U.S.A. I am heavily involved in web accessibility issues, making sure that web content is available to everyone regardless of physical disability, method of accessing the Internet, or level of technology.

2. I have had indirect experience of organizations whose leadership have resisted such transparency, and I know that this mentality is a fast road to destruction. I have always held the view that information must be shared with all interested parties, unless there are very good reasons to withhold it.

3. One of the strongest bases for an organization such as ICANN is the strength of its core membership. I believe the board should be drawn from the membership, that the board should then exercise the proper oversight of the staff, and that the ICANN staff should not be employed from the ranks of board members in order to maintain a proper employee-employer relationship.

4. I believe that only in the clearest cases of intentional misleading or profit motivation should the "first come, first served" domain name policy be overturned.

5. I do not have strong views on the organizational split of IP address and DNS root server management. I feel this issues are best solved on a "what is technically best" basis.

6. I do not believe governmental control over domain name space can be a practical solution, given the global nature of the internet, the increasing abuse of the two-letter country codes, and the absence of a global government.

7. I am strongly against artifical scarcity of names. However, I am ambivalent on the decentralizing of some functions, as I realize that the independent operation of many registration/name lookup/routing functions can cause technical chaos. However I feel, (maybe naively) that it must be possible to retain a single, core central registry without giving any individual, organization or company the temptation of "abuse of power". I see no great problem with the current system.

8. Privacy policies as generally adopted by organizations that hold elections should apply to all ICANN operations.

9. The costs of participating in ICANN activities, and the costs that ICANN itself incurs in its operations should be kept as economically low as possible. Expenses should be looked at with a view to "does this further the ICANN objective" before approval. Adam L. Beberg

I believe the first 3 values aim at something deeper which is that the membership base needs to be informed and educated about the issues they will vote on. Any issue that the members must decide needs to include the technical details, as well as a pro and con argument, all translated into multiple languages. The membership also needs to remain vigilant of the things happening in ICANN that have a public effect, and this can only be done with complete information.

One problem I have seen emerging due to ICANN's relatively few issues to deal with, but of high complexity and with extended impact, is that of "if I can get 50 non-technical friends to sign up, I can tell them all how to vote because they cannot understand the geekspeak". This is just as dangerous as the commercial makeup of the DNSOs, but far more insidious. Unfortunately this will probably be the operating mode for the At Large membership base.

Trademark laws as a social convention are an important thing if people are to know who they are dealing with, and that others with be prevented from pretending to be someone they are not. That said, I don't see how domain names or IP numbers affect free expression or privacy, other then the help privacy by limiting pretenders. Governments do not need ICANN's help to limit freedoms.

The scarcity of domains of any kind is completely artificial, and should be reduced or removed. Any TLD should be allowed, and is technically possible, but should be subject to some critical mass (N people want TLD .xyz) to avoid all domains turning into TLDs. Since other TLD's are not scarce, ccTLD's being a pain to get, if not scarce, doesn't seem to be a large problem. The ccTLD registrars must compete next to the generic registrars, and the market will eliminate the inefficient and unresponsive registrars. ICANN does need to take a role to insure that domain owners can easily change registrars, without hassle or loss/theft of their domains, which several registrars now prevent. Emerson Tiller

I will address each of the guiding principles put forth by the Civil Society.

1. ICANN must be representative.

I agree. In fact, I propose that:

• the majority (not just 9), if not all, of the board members should be elected by the at-large membership.
• Email, fax, and regular mail member registrations should be accepted. Registration should be 1-step.
• ICANN members should enjoy the protections of being members under California's non-profit laws.

Note that, for months, I have engaged in a public information campaign to increase and broaden the ICANN membership (http://www.icannvote.com).

2. ICANN must be transparent.

Absolutely.

3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes.

I agree. I suggest that petition processes be allowed to bring issues up for a membership wide vote. The membership should also vote on whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) passed in 1999 should be reauthorized.

4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights.

Political, religious, anonymous, and other forms of free speech, as they reveal themselves in domain names or other web content, should be accorded equal standing with intellectual property rights.

5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics.

I agree. However, we should recognize the in an electronic age, technical decisions produce policy results, and thus in some sense the technical decisions are often policy decisions (much like decisions on process often determine the policy). Rather than ignoring this critical relationship, we would be better off to acknowledge the connection, and then be specific about which technology-driven policy areas ICANN should and should not involve itself. Any expansion of policy making should be authorized by both broad membership voting and broader international representation on the board.

6. The domain name space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions.

I agree. And the more we can open the TLD space, the more effectively these multiple uses can be met.

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.

I believe that the expansion of the domain name space through the creation of new TLD registries should be one of ICANN's highest priorities. To the extent centralization occurs, or is necessary, it should be legitimized by broad public approval and international representation.

8. ICANN must respect privacy.

I agree. ICANN should avoid technical/policy decisions that compromise anonymity and the security of personal information.

9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.

And shared fairly among all countries, on condition that they have a fair chance at representation on the ICANN board and enjoy the services that ICANN performs.

Final Comments: ICANN is not beyond repair. There are a lot of good people who have worked to make it a forum that responds to the new demands of the Internet society. But ICANN is in need of restructuring, both in terms of process (election procedures, for example) and substance (the UDRP, for example). My platform: http://64.82.55.205/tiller.html. Barbara Simons

I state on my election web page http://barbara.simons.org/:

"I support the values enunciated by the Civil Society Internet Forum. These include 'democratic participation in decision-making, open processes, the right to communicate, and a fair balance between rights of privacy, speech, consumers, and property in Internet governance'. I shall work to defend privacy, speech, and the needs and rights of the smaller players; I sincerely hope that the other candidates will demonstrate their support for these important principles."

I also signed the Civil Society Internet Forum Mission Statement in Yokohama. (See http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/csif/signatories.html).

I am very pleased that you are asking this question of all the candidates. I hope that people will honestly state whether or not they will support the Civil Society principles. My support is public and long standing.

On my web page I also pledge to:

• be accessible and responsive to the members of the at-large community,
• create an advisory group of experts in technological, policy, economics, and the law,
• work to build a decision-making process that is open and inclusive.

The decisions made by the ICANN Board during the next few years will have a major impact on the speech and freedom on the Internet. I have a history of fighting for speech, privacy, and open access. My web page contains links to several policy articles I have written on these topics. Among other actions, I have:

• testified before a Senate subcommittee in favor of the legislation that would significantly reduce export controls on encryption,
• worked to defeat the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
• spoken out and written letters in opposition to UCITA,
• opposed attempts to censor the Internet,
• submitted a supporting declaration for the defense in the New York DVD trial (See http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0503-reply.html#Simons),
• fought efforts to establish wide-spread monitoring by law enforcement of the Internet,
• worked to support privacy.

My support for the right to anonymity on the Internet is reflected in my membership on the Advisory Board of ZeroKnowledge Systems Inc.

I hope that the readers of Slashdot will read my statement on the ICANN web page and the material I have posted on my web site. If anyone has comments or suggestions, he or she can reach me at simons@acm.org. Karl Auerbach

I helped write it - I think its a darn fine statement. ;-)

(One can compare it to my rather long set of views as expressed on my election web page at http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/ )

ICANN as it is now constructed and operated seems to be premised on the notion that the Internet is there for the benefit of commercial interests and that ICANN ought to treat those who "merely" use the Internet as babes in the woods who can't be trusted to make decisions and who need paternalistic protection.

The Civil Society Statement is, to my mind, a roadmap of how ICANN can return to a more balanced state - so that the users of the Internet will be respected as people who can make their own decisions about their own interests.

Governance is hard. And ICANN is undertaking something new and difficult. ICANN cripples itself by creating a body of people who feel that they have been disenfranchised. The Civil Society Statement is a reminder to ICANN that it has forgotten to be inclusive of all those who believe they have role in these matters.

If you compare the Civil Society Statement with my own platform, you will see that I have gone rather further in certain areas - particularly with regard to procedures and ICANN structure. It is very much my belief that inclusive processes - even if they appear somewhat more chaotic than today's ICANN staff choreographed dictates - are at least as important as any substantive policy decision.

As a practical matter, whoever wins the election for a board seat is going to be but one person out of 19. So any single candidate's platform is probably not going to become fact, at least not immediately. ICANN's staff has become so entrenched and has taken control of the corporation so completely, that reform of ICANN is going to be a major effort. The Civil Society Statement serves as something we can always look to to see whether ICANN is improving.

Tom Lowenhaupt

Guiding Value 1. ICANN must be representative.

The ICANN needs to represent all of the Internet's current users - not just business interests.

But more than this, the ICANN needs to acknowledge the immense impact the Internet has on all people, and it needs to reserve representation space for those not yet on the net. When America was young it excluded women, workers, and African salves from its representation system. Let's learn from the 150 year struggle to remedy that stupidity. Let's set aside representation space now.

But representation on the ICANN is not a simple matter. How do you represent 5 billion people? I don't have all the answers to this question, but I began my search by asking the following. Who runs the military? Who sets water and air pollution standards? Who determines the direction and usage rules for our roadways? It's not the army or the air and highway bureaucrats. It's civil society - you and me. (Or at least it should be!)

Business might own the net, but it's you and me that pump in the cash that allows them to operate. Let's take control and make sure the net's something that's good for our families and good for our communities.

Guiding Value 2. ICANN must be transparent.
Guiding Value 3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes.

The ICANN's operation and its decision making process must be transparent and inviting to the public. Issues should be framed and brought to the public within a context and with comprehendible background information. Everyone should have the opportunity to comment on upcoming decisions using online forums, listservers, and polling systems.

Guiding Value 4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights.
Guiding Value 8. ICANN must respect privacy.

First and foremost the net should be about communication that empowers the individual. It shouldn't be turned into TV 2. When intellectual property rights are treated with undue importance, our access to information and our privacy rights are reduced.

Guiding Value 5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics.

Rapid growth and technologic change guarantees a tumultuous future for the net. Unsettling developments will be thrown into the ICANN's waiting lap on a regular basis. And human nature will have the organization's employees accreting power.

So I support an open governance system with separation of powers and independent review mechanisms.

Guiding Value 6. The domain name space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions.
Guiding Value 7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.

There needn't be any shortage in the domain name space. Look at Karl Auerbach's page for a discussion this. (Karl's also an At Large candidate, see his page at http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/).

An acknowledged expert in the field, Karl's proposed adding 10,000 new names - per year. He says the net should be able to support somewhere between 1,000,000 - 7,000,000 new TLDs.

IP numbers need to the distributed equitably, with set asides for future net users.

Guiding Value 9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.

I agree that we should keep costs to a minimum - who wouldn't? But good governance doesn't come cheep. If you want an open decision making process, you need qualified and well paid employees to create and present balanced presentations. You need good systems to keep the communication channels opened. And you need checks and balances to prevent centralization of power and undue influences by a moneyed class.

The money to pay for the net's operation is coming out of our pockets - ain' t no two ways about it. Let's invest our pennies in a governance system that empowers its users and respects their privacy.

I'll conclude by saying, "Vote for me and I'll do my best to see that the net works for us all." Ted Phipps

The CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT ON ICANN ELECTIONS addresses 7 guiding values.
I will discuss each in turn.

1. Representation.

ICANN should mirror the people it represents. There needs to be a better balance between technical/non-technical capabilities. I've been involved with advanced IT aviation systems. However, it's my capabilities in understanding and handling international issues that ICANN is most short of.

2. Transparency.

We demand this from 'public for-profit' companies, why would we expect anything less from a 'non-profit?'

3. Bottom-up processes.

ICANN must be of the members, by the members and for the members. Directors must be diligent in protecting your interests. If they don't, then not only should they be removed; but 'you' have an obligation to remove them. This is your global village, not theirs!

4. Intellectual property rights.

Throughout history, property issues have been at the forefront of any new frontier. Interestingly, this virtual property issue was dealt with in 1776. It's roots evolved out of Englishman John Locke's Treatise on Civil Government. Locke identified three rights: life, liberty and property. Jefferson took property a step further. He replaced the word property with "the right to pursuit of happiness." Jefferson wanted to make certain that the rights were not limited to land. In effect, Jefferson made a momentous step toward recognizing virtual rights. James Madison cemented the concept when he said we must "equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights." [Madison went on to list some virtual property examples in a 1792 essay].

For speculators, there are rights in property. For the trademark holder there's property in rights. ICANN must balance these rights. Fortunately, there is a solution- release more gTLD's under different classifications.

5. Policy-making.

The 'White Paper' identifies 4 guiding principles: stability, competition, bottom-up coordination and representation. The directors should follow this course.

6. Domain-space.

I agree that, multiple, parallel and overlapping TLDs registries for various stakeholders should not be excluded from the root. This is not only the basis of a vibrant society, but an empowered one.

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization.

We don't need a DeBeers of the Internet. Holding gTLD's back is like building trade barriers - no one wins! Releasing new gTLDs is good for trademark holders, good for ebusiness, and good for the global village as a whole.

8. Privacy.

Information must flow freely across borders. This goes without saying for private users. For commercial users, ICANN's policies and procedures should adhere to Fair Information Practices. A good starting point is the OECD Privacy Guidelines. This policy actually makes life easier since companies' wouldn't have to guess whether they're violating a 'human rights' law.

9. Costs.

ICANN's operations should be transparent. If fees are charged they should be limited to commercial users. I polled the board members of ColorMeHome.com. They agree, as I believe most companies do: that it is better for businesses to contribute, than limit any individuals' access. Eric Grimm

Thank you for this chance to introduce myself and my candidacy to /. In response to your question, the Civil Society Statement reinforces and corroborates my opinion that the ICANN at-large elections, while certainly a welcome development, still are too little, too late. They only represent the first step toward reintroducing ideals of open and equitable decision-making -- including broad-based and fair representation of all interests, transparency, democracy, and freedom - into Internet governance generally and ICANN in particular.

I fully support the ideals of transparency, freedom and democracy not only in this context, but in other trans-national contexts, such as trade regulation, which should serve the long-term interests of the world's population as a whole, including future generations, and not the narrow interests of a tiny minority residing principally in industrial countries.

Following the ICANN vote, representatives of corporate power still will command super-majorities both on the ICANN Board and on every ICANN subcommittee. Therefore, the first at-large representatives will have to shoulder tremendous responsibility to keep things moving in the right direction. The costs of the status quo are already too evident. For example, the dispute resolution process that ICANN has established *COULD* have been designed to be fair and to promote impartiality, and should have included the following simple and obvious safeguards of fairness:

• Respondents should have the right to exercise a peremptory "strike" against the complainant's initial choice of forum. At present, the multiple Fora (WIPO, NAF) have every economic incentive to cater solely to the interests of trademark complainants, because they realize that complainants alone have the choice as to where the arbitration business will go. Respondents, at present, have no choice whatsoever in the process. Complainants naturally will select among fora based on their perception that, with respect to the issues in their particular case, one forum or another happens to be the most biased and unfair in complainants' favor. I have even had counsel for complainants admit this to me directly in particular cases that I have defended.
• Both complainants and respondents should have the right to exercise a limited number of peremptory "strikes" against individual arbitrators, whose track record demonstrates that they disregard the law and clearly fail to measure up to the standard of objectivity and impartiality. Yet, the people in control of ICANN omitted this important and obvious procedural safeguard.
• Complainants should be required, as a condition of invoking the ICANN dispute resolution process, to post a monetary bond, in case the complaint turns out to represent a bad-faith effort to engage in extortion, theft, and "reverse domain name piracy." Defending such a case is expensive, and the process was intended only to be invoked in "clear-cut" cases. In cases where the complainant has initiated arbitration in bad faith or for extortionate purposes, the arbitral panel should have broad discretion to compensate the respondent for the financial burden of defending a frivolous case.
• Each of the arbitration providers - like judges and courts in most forward-thinking jurisdictions - should be forbidden from commenting outside the arbitral process (i.e., to the press) on the merits of pending cases. They certainly should be prohibited from issuing press releases for the evident purpose of trying to drum up more business from new complainants by obliquely promising to "evict" respondents as often as can be managed. Specific press releases issued by more than one of the current arbitration service providers create a clear appearance of impropriety, and arguably constitute conclusive evidence of actual impropriety.
• The process should have a more robust mechanism for appeal from, and correction of, erroneous decisions. Also necessary is a mechanism for removing individual arbitrators who demonstrate a persistent inability to apply the rules fairly, and as those rules were written and intended to be applied. Even the most cursory examination of the output of the two most popular tribunals shows that their decisions are all over the map. Most decisions are mutually irreconcilable with one another. The ICANN process, as it is currently working, more resembles a random "domain name lottery" than a legitimate and balanced effort to administer fair rules in a consistent manner.

The problems with the status quo are also evident from both (1) the unnecessary and counterproductive delay in introducing new Top Level Domains, and (2) the proposed - arbitrary and unnecessary - barrier to entry of a $50,000 payment in order even to apply to establish a new Top Level Domain.

This is not to say that I believe that commerce is "bad," or that I am opposed to trademark law, or that I have any desire to banish commerce from the Internet. Quite the contrary, I strongly favor the application of TRADITIONAL principles of trademark law, within appropriate contexts. I firmly oppose the unnecessary EXPANSION of IP rights, however, and will fight to roll back the special rights that trademark owners have demanded. I also strongly favor commerce on the Internet -- both by small business as well as by big business. However, commerce is not entitled to a special place among the pantheon of Internet constituencies, and should assume its proper place among all constituencies of the Internet community as a whole.

In short, after reviewing the Civil Society Statement, I wholeheartedly agree with it and promise, if elected, to uphold every single principle listed in the document. I also pledge to work continuously to ensure that the process of democratization and open governance continues to move forward, rather than stagnating or moving in counterproductive directions.

A short biography is probably in order. I am an attorney who specializes in Internet law (including privacy, First Amendment, trademark, encryption, online commerce, and other issues). I represent clients from many different countries, with multiple perspectives on many of these issues (but never any clients in whose causes I do not believe). I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and practice in courtrooms all over the United States. I have experience working for the United States government, as well as for a state Supreme Court, for a large law firm that represents multinational corporations, and for a federal trial court judge. At present, however, I work in a small firm setting by choice principally because of the autonomy it gives me to choose to take positions because I believe in them, and not because a large client representation requires me to subordinate my principles to "the firm's" financial interests.

I have both the time and desire to contribute constructively to improving ICANN and Internet governance, and I thank all of you who choose to give me the opportunity to serve your interests as your ICANN at-large representative. John Alexander

At the outset, I should note that I strongly support the efforts of the CPSR, and the Internet Democracy Project, to keep our civil rights in the forefront at this formative stage of international internet governance. Bodies such as ICANN have a natural tendency to be driven by the most substantive financial interests in a controversy more strongly than by such notions as free speech and diversity.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Yokohama Statement's preamble. Indeed, ICANN must consider how its actions impact the global exercise of free speech and association, as well as the ability of those in the minority to take their places at the internet table.

In fact, this notion not only describes my own deeply-held beliefs, but also my very rationale for volunteering my most valuable asset - time and expertise - to the task of internet domain governance.

My online ICANN candidate statement and web page - http://www.netgaincc.com/icann - give more detail on my professional background and training. I have a great deal of experience as a journalist, attorney and, for the past four years, web designer. Throughout, I have donated my time to the assistance and representation of those whose civil rights have been threatened - in the arenas of federal and state court, and the internet. My company, Net Gain Communications Consultants, designed and hosted the website for a leading affirmative action organization founded by Martin Luther King III, as one example.

Most of the nine issues articulated in the Yokohama Statement describe values over which I suspect there may little debate, if just as little current compliance, by ICANN.

For example, ICANN President Mike Roberts likely would not argue with the second proposition, that ICANN must operate transparent to public scrutiny. Yet the group is woefully deficient in communicating the substance of ongoing issues and proposed resolutions to the impacted internet public with sufficient time to secure meaningful response from all factions.

That is why the first "plank" of my "platform" is Communication: I pledge a commitment of my own time and expertise to ensuring ICANN communicates in a more complete and timely fashion, using with some degree of sophistication the very technology it seeks to regulate. I feel well suited to do this, given my background in journalism, law and the web.

I cannot claim complete consonance with the Yokohama Statement, however. Some of the language is so vague as to be nothing more than the start of a conversation about the topic, while other particulars are simply off-course. For example, within principal number five, the proposition regarding separation of IP address and DNS root server management would simply complicate an otherwise complex process with more bureaucracy serving no reasonable purpose. The stated goal of "decentralizing authority" really does not articulate a valid reason for this move.

While I could take issue with several specifics of this sort, I think what is important is that I generally support the goals of the Yokohama Statement, and of the CPSR. If elected an at-large director, I will listen carefully to the CPSR's views on all issues before ICANN. Robin Bandy

While I certainly think that the CPSR Statement points in the correct direction, I also think that it ignores a few fundamental issues and, on the important issues it does address, it does not go far enough. The focus of most of the Statement can be grouped under the broad heading of "Democratic Representation", and as such they miss a few important considerations.

First and most important, is that ICANN (as a company incorporated under American, and Californian, law) cannot actually be representative of a global usership. ICANN's freedom to structure itself is proscribed by American and Californian laws governing the organization and operation of non-profit corporations and its actual existence is dependant upon the sufferance of these two governments, either of which could revoke its corporate existence at will. An organization so dependant on one country cannot, and should not be expected to, represent the users from or residing in other countries. By ICANN's control of the default DNS root it also illegitimately extends the jurisdiction of American and Californian law to governing interactions between Americans in other states and between citizens or residents of other countries.

While transparency and openness are obvious necessities of a democratic structure, CPSR also does not extend their call for a more democratic ICANN to including procedures for member initiative and referendum nor for member initiated recall of elected Board members, all features of any truly democratic system.

Additionally, a truly democratic ICANN should have no representation of government or corporate interests. Governments and corporations are already representative organizations, the first represent their citizens and the second represent their owners; these interests are already represented by the voting members who are also constituents of governments and corporations. To allow the U.S. government, for example, a representative in ICANN is to multiply the votes of the U.S. ICANN members by giving them two Board members (one shared with Canada and one of their own) while devaluing the votes of all non-American members. To allow NSI or CORE, to take another example, representation is to grant the owners of the corporation, as individuals, vastly greater influence than all other individual members. These are clearly not democratic scenarios, as they are basically the same as if R.J. Reynolds or any other special-interest lobbying group were given a direct seat in the U.S. Congress, but they are the essence of how ICANN now functions.

That CPSR calls for opening the current monolithic DNS root to a collaborative root shared between the ICANN and alternative namespaces is marvelous. In my capacity as a root server maintainer with the OpenNIC, I have been involved in discussing exactly that with several of the existing alternates and obviously am fully in support of that scenario. Though we have already begun discussions with several Linux and BSD distributions about the possibility of their installers supporting the alternative roots, we would obviously much prefer that the current root also support them.

That they also call for an end to the artificial domain name scarcity is also good, but I think they don't consider exactly how it needs to be managed. Simply adding new generic Top-Level Domains (TLDs) would not help solve another of their concerns, that of the over-focus on "Intellectual Property" (i.e. trademark) concerns. By implementing new TLDs with well defined charters, such as the .parody TLD served by OpenNIC, the trademark concerns can be properly confined to appropriately chartered TLDs, leaving space available for parody, criticism and personal sites which would be free from the current ever- present threat of trademark lawsuits. By chartering a geographic series of TLDs, trademark concerns could also be confined to their appropriate geographical regions rather than, as the current system does, allowing conflicts between properly registered trademarks in various countries and regions.

Since Slashdot asked us to keep these down to around 500 words, and I've already gone over that, here are a few additional informational links:

• My Candidacy page
• The OpenNIC, an alternative namespace which, I think, provides a good model

Sondlo Leonard Mhlaba

Response to Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections
by Sondlo Leonard Mhlaba, PhD

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Civil Society Statement of July 13, 2000.

I have followed the work of CPSR for several years and, more recently, have benefited from the work of the Democracy Project. It should, therefore, come as no surprise to many that I support the nine Guiding Values of the Civil Society Statement. I do have some reservations about some details in Values 1, 7, and 8.

Value #1: Representativeness. The basis of my questions and my perspective on this item can best be appreciated through the mission of The New Franchise Institute at http://www.NewFranchise.Org which I am currently building . I see development of the internet as a momentous event in the history of the world. In 500 Years of Eurocentric Diplomacy: Prospects for the 21st Century (1999), I dared to suggest that the internet may become as integral to human life as the heavy coat is to the polar bear. Looked at in this light, the internet has the potential to separate "internet haves" from the "internet have-nots" so far apart as to constitute separate species. I am a naturalized American citizen and Zimbabwe native, having come to the US in the mid-60s. From where I sit, therefore, the work of ICANN and all the parties to internet development, is epoch-making.

In light of the above perspective, I believe that, at some point, ICANN needs to re-examine how the world is divided for purposes of representation. Should, for example, representatives be assigned in proportion to the at-large members, or in proportion to the population of the region (irrespective of the level of internet participation)? Readers may know that of the 58,000 at-large registrants for the purposes of this up-coming election, only 1,000 came from the Continent of Africa. How should language and the attendant worldview be factored in? A year ago, according to a study cited in my book, about 58% of internet communication was in English and 83% was in European languages. In the long term, I believe that a Eurocentric, and North-American dominated internet is not in our (North America's) political, civic, or economic interest. The North American representative must provide a more globalist, and future-oriented perspective, as he or she endevors to be responsive to his or her North American internet constituency.

Value #7. I believe that some domain name categories ought to be reserved for civic and governmental entities, while other categories are left to the market. Cyber-squatting and the after-market ought to be disallowed in the governmental and civic categories. However, I believe that cyber-squatting and related market techniques should be allowed in the market category. In order for this distinction to work in the interest of the general public, a great deal of care would, of course, need to go into defining the two categories.

Value #8: I support respect for privacy, but I also realize that there are differences among cultures as to what level of privacy is necessary or adequate. I believe that some of the OECD prescriptions, if they become a world standard, could dampen critical debate in the civic arena and complicate normal international market activity.

My major problem with Value # 8 is in the area of member voting. I strongly believe that ICANN board member voting must be open, and not through secret ballot. I think at-large members must be able to hold board members accountable for their votes, and a secret ballot process is inimical to the concept of transparency (Value # 2). Marty Freeman

As far as the Cival Society sataement, I agree completly. I think they sould have included some links or examples, however, to information sugsting that ICANN is not working in the manner it should. www.WIPO.org.uk (World Intelectual Piracy Orginization) has some more info. and examples.

Reading the statement did help me realize the depth of the problem though. The internet is so interseting and usefull because of the content provided by its users. If it becomes too dificult for someone to set up a server and give it an easy to find address, then the internet will loose the very thing everyone loves it for -- ridiculous ammounts of usefull, useless, interesting and funny information. It will become a homogonized channel for the distribution of U.S. corporate propaganda. That sucks. I don't want surfing the internet to be like watching TV. I am really glad to have a chance to change things and hope for at least a chance to be on the final ballot. I would like to note that the ICANN has put the 158,000 people who actually managed to sign up in a tight position. They have only two weeks to decide among the candidates for their area. Plus, the first few people to gain enough support in a area are the only ones to make it. That seams sort of unfair. On one hand you have to study info on 50 people and decide who is best for the job, on the other, you have to decide quickly which candidate to vote for, or all the slots may already be full. This is one of the first things I would change. It makes more sense for the top supported few to make it than the first few to get 2% of the total support. Anyway, thanks for giving me a chance to voice my oppenion. I hope you will all make an informed and responsible decision. Chris Stewart

The Civil Society's "Statement On ICANN Elections" addresses a number of issues that are quite popular amongst candidates seeking member-nomination. The paper focuses on a need for transparency, proportionate representation, fundamental rights, and the "bottom-up" process of administration. However, I am extremely disappointed that, once again consumer rights issues are not mentioned in the context of purchasing, owning, selling, or the security of a domain name.

As well, the paper does not address the need for ICANN to review its accreditation process, or the continued technical and administrative negligence of registrars. It is also disconcerting to conclude that the Civil Society opposes the current practice of selling, renting, or leasing a domain name in excess of its original registration cost incurred by the registrant. The following point taken from the paper's "Guiding Values" supports this conclusion,

Section 7. Artificial Scarcity and Centralization Should Be Avoided

"The use of domain names as a marketing device to index content creates excessive value in domain names and creates disincentives to innovation."

The Civil Society also argues that a "scarcity in domain names creates opportunities for control". However, the solution to this "artificial" scarcity should not be, as suggested by the paper, an unconstrained expansion of the Internet domain name space.

It can be agreed that a greater number of new gTLDs would benefit consumers by potentially reducing registration costs and allowing an increased selection of domains and registrars. However, it is irresponsible to ignore the incidents of technical and administrative negligence that currently hounds registrars and the domain registration/ownership process. These are the issues that need to be addressed prior to any consideration of an "unconstrained" expansion. I refer to two examples of registrar negligence and the lack of accountability on their behalf in the following two articles.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,32974,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2615087,00.html

Consumers want a system that will allow them to purchase a domain, maintain its security via an accredited registrar, use the domain in any context they wish without restrictions that impede upon their civil liberties, and the right to profit from the use or sale of that domain. This paper does not address these fundamental concerns with any conviction.

The Civil Society does however appeal to the interests of the Internet community in many aspects of the statement. The need for proportionate representation rather than "democracy deficit", and the minimization or avoidance of ICANN policy-making on non-technical topics are extremely favourable arguments. The latter of the two directly refers to policies such as the UDRP, which has attempted to handcuff the abuse of trademark infringement in the domain registration environment.

However, the paper does not comment on the use of the arbitration system (such as the WIPO) in order to settle disputes. This system has been fraught with negative response from domain name owners and the media alike. The absence of support for or against this system of dispute resolution is unsettling. Decisions from this arbitration panel have been inconsistent, extremely unfair, and unjust in many of the cases, suggesting that the scope of the UDRP has been abused and sometimes ignored altogether. I offer the following site, which addresses some of the specific cases. http://www.domainshame.com/

To view the issues I feel need to be addressed in this election, please visit http://www.iknowicann.com

Sincerely, Christopher Stewart Lee Fulmer

I fully endorse and support the intent of the Civil Society's statement on the ICANN elections.

It seems that since its inception, the internet has been driven by government and corporate interests. I think that ICANN needs to be fully transparent in its operation and accountable to the entire internet community. One of the most important tasks ICANN faces is to deal with the current problems of "scarcity" of domain space by clamping down on speculators and creating new gTLDs. It is equally important the ICANN is representative of the internet community and should include equal representation from all regions as well as from all interest groups (business, government, academia and individuals).

As an individual who has lived and worked in North America, Europe and Australasia across all the interest groups, I feel I have a unique perspective I can contribute to the process. The domain space should be more distributed among the registrars to help keep costs (including ICANN's) down. I certainly don't expect to paid for my work and I would strive to ensure that a balance between public, private, and personal interests is taken.

Please read my candidacy statement on the ICANN site at http://members.icann.org/nom/cp/47.html and visit my site at http://www.fulmer.com/ before you case your vote! Patrick D'Acre

The issues raised by the Internet Democracy white paper have significant merit. As such, they would need to be included in a larger conversation, involving activated participants, with the intention of finding the middle ground. The 'revisionist' approach to providing a 'FREE Internet' for every person, hints at some policies of the past (e.g. Commerce Secretary Hoover in the 20's).

For the Internet to progress, and be made available to the largest population, business practices are mandatory. And attempt to revert to the origins of the Internet would be woefully out of place and inadvertantly restrict access to the most deserving.

I can appreaciate some of the points in the white paper, yet look for more 'centrist' approaches to implementing those same objectives.

For information on my interests see http://www.letsdobizradio.bizland.com/personal/resume.htm. Laurie Williams

1. ICANN must be representative--Agree. Further, consideration should be given to not only developing countries, but also to developing areas within developed countries. For example, interests of those in rural Oklahoma, North Dakota, or in the furthest reaches of Canada, may be more aligned with those of a remote island or developing country, than with the metropolitan areas of the USA or Canada.

2. ICANN must be transparent--Agree.

3. ICANN must use bottom-up process--Agree

4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights--ICANN should foster collaboration and cooperation instead of creating antagonism and divisiveness. Domains are not synonymous with trademarks--otherwise the system would have been called the TNS (Trademark Name Service) and not the DNS (Domain Name Service).

5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics--Agree.

6. The domain space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions--Agree.

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided--Agree, with the caveat that the technical efficacy of the internet should be guaranteed before expansion and diffusion is promoted. Further, registrars should continue to enhance their processes to streamline the needs of clients. In addition, registrars, portals, and search engines should expand to include more effective searches for domain names.

8. ICANN must respect privacy--Agree.

9. Costs should be minimal and equitable--Agree. In addition, the Berkman Center does an excellent job in providing remote participation of ICANN meetings. Emphasis should be placed on enhanced technology to make ICANN webcasts even better in the future so that individuals without the resources of large companies, can participate more effectively.

-->

-->

-->

-->