Slashdot Mirror
Domain: cpsr.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to cpsr.org.
Stories · 19
-
Supreme Court To Hear SSN Privacy case
Chope writes "In the flurry of end-of-term US Supreme Court decisions, some may have overlooked a case the Court agreed to take for the term beginning in the fall 2003. The Court is finally going to consider the ramifications of government requests for and subsequent disclosure of your social security number. The law in question is the 1974 Privacy Act, which places restrictions on how the government (federal, state, and local) can request individuals' SSNs. A good source of background information is Chris Hibbert's SSN FAQ and his Privacy Act Background. While the Privacy Act put bounds on the when and how the SSN may be requested and also required the government to protect the information collected, the Privacy Act established no penalties if the government failed to protect the data. The Court will decide if individuals must prove they were harmed in order to receive compensation, or if the government's mere (?!) release of information is sufficient grounds to award damages. The story, an AP wire by Gina Holland, appeared in today's (28-June-2003) Portland Oregonian but doesn't yet appear on their website. Google isn't returning much at this point, either. The Supreme Court's website has only the barest information. The case is Doe (pseudonym) v. Chao, docket 02-1377. Doe was a coal miner who's SSN was used by the state of Virginia to track Black Lung disease cases. Virginia later published reports of the cases, including the SSNs. The 4th Circuit ruled against Doe in October 2002." -
Supreme Court To Hear SSN Privacy case
Chope writes "In the flurry of end-of-term US Supreme Court decisions, some may have overlooked a case the Court agreed to take for the term beginning in the fall 2003. The Court is finally going to consider the ramifications of government requests for and subsequent disclosure of your social security number. The law in question is the 1974 Privacy Act, which places restrictions on how the government (federal, state, and local) can request individuals' SSNs. A good source of background information is Chris Hibbert's SSN FAQ and his Privacy Act Background. While the Privacy Act put bounds on the when and how the SSN may be requested and also required the government to protect the information collected, the Privacy Act established no penalties if the government failed to protect the data. The Court will decide if individuals must prove they were harmed in order to receive compensation, or if the government's mere (?!) release of information is sufficient grounds to award damages. The story, an AP wire by Gina Holland, appeared in today's (28-June-2003) Portland Oregonian but doesn't yet appear on their website. Google isn't returning much at this point, either. The Supreme Court's website has only the barest information. The case is Doe (pseudonym) v. Chao, docket 02-1377. Doe was a coal miner who's SSN was used by the state of Virginia to track Black Lung disease cases. Virginia later published reports of the cases, including the SSNs. The 4th Circuit ruled against Doe in October 2002." -
Copyright Defeats?
Uruk asks: "Over the last few years, we've seen what looks like the victory of copyright and business interest at the expense of the consumer. There's been The DMCA, the UCITA, all of the legal wranging over DeCSS, and so on. Copyright holders can even shut your website down without doing the research about whether or not it was appropriate. Johansen did seem to be acquited of some of what was brought against him as a result of the DeCSS situation, but that was in Norway. Does anyone know of any copyright or consumer victories on the net in the last few years? Something that limits the abilities of these laws, or otherwise acts in the copyright spirit of free use? My hat is off to GNU and EFF, even Project Gutenberg. What is the status of this ongoing battle? I'm looking for the sunny side to a situation that seems littered with defeat." -
Challenges to Opt-Out Privacy Policies at Colleges?
jmaxlow asks: "It's that time of year again when my university sends out mailers informing students that their personal information will be compiled and released in a student directory unless students register objections in writing by the deadline. This info includes name, address, date of birth, and email address, among other items, and there is nothing to prevent them from selling the information to third parties without vested interests. The Buckley Amendment allows them to do this, so of course it isn't illegal. But my question is: has anyone ever petitioned their university to change to an opt-in policy? I'd like to know what responses schools have given, if any, when challenged, before I bring it up with my own registrar." -
Slashback: Voting, Suing, Retiring
Slashback tonight brings you an update on Intel honcho Gordon Moore (whose famous observation will probably be written about in histories of the 20th century); more news on the state of 802.11 security; a word or three on Linuxgruven; and the odd link on election technologies to leave dimpled chads in the past.What's the frequency, Kenneth? Maybe the analogies will just never stop, but Jethro73 points to this piece with "802.11's security issues compared to Swiss Cheese ...?"
The downside of all the attention being focused on the problems with 802.11 is that by the time there are some networks on my block to piggyback on, the holes will all be gone;)
Hopefully one of the last words here ... Rivendahl directs you attention to "this link to the StlToday.com web site giving a brief summary of a pending lawsuit against Linuxgruven.com, Inc. A bit of rumor says the owners cannot be found and perhaps fled. While I'd rather not report rumor, I would like to make sure the people Linuxgruven.com, Inc. has burned hear about them going down in flames and let them know also of the pending lawsuits. I don't know how much ex-employees may get out of it but at least spread the word, please. I know the teachers at Linuxgruven.com, Inc. teach their students to read /."
So it's time to put my Linuxgruven bumperstickers on eBay? Maybe they will mate with the LinuxOne distribution ...
Next year he'll be only half as old, though. cnkeller writes: "Gordon Moore has hit the maximum age of employment at Intel. As of May, he'll only be an honorary employee. Story here"
Please pick your poison; after that it's your fault. Erik Nilsson points to four informative articles about that which we Americans might prefer to hear nothing more about for a few years: voting, elections software, and Internet voting.
In 'No Easy Answers,' Lorrie Faith Cranor surveys elections technology, evaluates the prospects for Internet voting, and makes recommendations for action.
'Why Has Voting Technology Failed Us?' examines the performance of existing systems, and considers the prospects for improvement.
In 'Sweden to Experiment with E-voting,' Anders Olsson reports on Sweden's current electoral experiments.
In 'System Integrity Revisited,' Rebecca Mercuri and Peter Neumann examine the reasons why current voting systems have failed. They call on computer professionals to contribute their expertise to an informed discussion."
The upshot is still that there are no easy answers to ensuring that elections are accurate and fair.
-
Slashback: Voting, Suing, Retiring
Slashback tonight brings you an update on Intel honcho Gordon Moore (whose famous observation will probably be written about in histories of the 20th century); more news on the state of 802.11 security; a word or three on Linuxgruven; and the odd link on election technologies to leave dimpled chads in the past.What's the frequency, Kenneth? Maybe the analogies will just never stop, but Jethro73 points to this piece with "802.11's security issues compared to Swiss Cheese ...?"
The downside of all the attention being focused on the problems with 802.11 is that by the time there are some networks on my block to piggyback on, the holes will all be gone;)
Hopefully one of the last words here ... Rivendahl directs you attention to "this link to the StlToday.com web site giving a brief summary of a pending lawsuit against Linuxgruven.com, Inc. A bit of rumor says the owners cannot be found and perhaps fled. While I'd rather not report rumor, I would like to make sure the people Linuxgruven.com, Inc. has burned hear about them going down in flames and let them know also of the pending lawsuits. I don't know how much ex-employees may get out of it but at least spread the word, please. I know the teachers at Linuxgruven.com, Inc. teach their students to read /."
So it's time to put my Linuxgruven bumperstickers on eBay? Maybe they will mate with the LinuxOne distribution ...
Next year he'll be only half as old, though. cnkeller writes: "Gordon Moore has hit the maximum age of employment at Intel. As of May, he'll only be an honorary employee. Story here"
Please pick your poison; after that it's your fault. Erik Nilsson points to four informative articles about that which we Americans might prefer to hear nothing more about for a few years: voting, elections software, and Internet voting.
In 'No Easy Answers,' Lorrie Faith Cranor surveys elections technology, evaluates the prospects for Internet voting, and makes recommendations for action.
'Why Has Voting Technology Failed Us?' examines the performance of existing systems, and considers the prospects for improvement.
In 'Sweden to Experiment with E-voting,' Anders Olsson reports on Sweden's current electoral experiments.
In 'System Integrity Revisited,' Rebecca Mercuri and Peter Neumann examine the reasons why current voting systems have failed. They call on computer professionals to contribute their expertise to an informed discussion."
The upshot is still that there are no easy answers to ensuring that elections are accurate and fair.
-
ICANN Meetings
ICANN's next meeting will be Nov. 13-16, 2000, in Marina del Rey, CA. The Internet Democracy Project is conducting a meeting of At Large members on the morning of Sunday, Nov. 12, same location, so you don't have work as an excuse to miss it! The new At Large directors will be speaking at the meeting. Following that, the Berkman Center will have its own meeting examining intellectual property and the proposed new TLDs, and they've helpfully provided a set of background materials if you're not quite current with the issues. Note that ICANN "updated" their bylaws to prevent the newly elected directors from actually taking part in the ICANN Board meeting next week - they won't take office until just after all the new decisions about TLDs, etc., which will be made by the unelected directors, so it is very, very important to have some public participation since there aren't any public advocates on the board. -
ICANN Endorsements; Cyber-Federalist
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 Elections
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
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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
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 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.
"The use of domain names as a marketing device to index content creates excessive value in domain names and creates disincentives to innovation."
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 Elections
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
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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
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 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.
"The use of domain names as a marketing device to index content creates excessive value in domain names and creates disincentives to innovation."
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 Elections
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
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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
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 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.
"The use of domain names as a marketing device to index content creates excessive value in domain names and creates disincentives to innovation."
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 Elections
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
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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
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 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.
"The use of domain names as a marketing device to index content creates excessive value in domain names and creates disincentives to innovation."
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 & Internet Democracy
ICANN is meeting once again, this time in Yokohama, Japan. And once again, No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. Slashdot takes a look at ICANN and at the various attempts to beat some semblance of democracy and representation into the organization.Before we even get into this, I'm going to recommend again that everyone sign up for ICANN's At-Large membership. The deadline is July 31 - if you haven't signed up by then, you've missed your chance to be one of a few thousand voters who will affect the course of the internet's development. U.S. registration is way below that of other internet-savvy nations on a percentage-of-internet-users basis, because the media in those countries has been running extensive registration campaigns. Slashdot will be covering the election process - register to vote! (Note: if you're planning to self-nominate yourself for one of the open board seats, even if it's not the North America seat, please email me - I'd like to talk to you.) We'll also take this opportunity to plug an unofficial site for the At-Large community created by a slashdot reader, www.applyatlarge.com. It's just getting started, but the At-Large community could use some non-ICANN methods of communication.
Jett writes "TomPaine.com has an interesting article discussing the upcoming ICANN elections. The article gives a lot of good info on how ICANN is set up as well as some analysis on some of the problems they are facing to ensure fair and democratic elections."
There's some information about the actual on-going meeting available in near-real-time, supposedly even a web-based chat though I haven't seen it in operation, sponsored by the Berkman Center. Keep in mind that Japan is ~14 hours ahead of the U.S., so the Saturday meetings will be occuring Friday night in the U.S.
Probably the most important news at this meeting is not the wrangling over new .TLDs, even though that is the only aspect of the ICANN meeting getting any press coverage. Though the vote hasn't happened yet, I'm willing to wager that the restrictive NSI proposals will win out - a few new .TLDs will be started, NSI will be running at least one of them (way to diversify!), with massive trademark protections so that most "good" domains will be unregistrable. That battle isn't going to be won any time soon. Note that every single problem associated with domain names - every single one, from squatting to scalping to companies hijacking domains from individuals - is caused by artificial scarcity of names. Eliminate the two sources of artificial scarcity (limited TLDs and trademark law) and all domain name problems vanish.
But the most important initiative at this meeting is the ambitiously-named Internet Democracy Project, started by the American Civil Liberties Union, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The site is already a great collection of links on ICANN, and promises more content in the future; it's a good place to start if you're new to this whole thing. They've articulated a civil society perspective on the ICANN elections process, ICANN itself, and the domain name system - excellent reading, excellent goals, I support them entirely. It remains to be seen what will come of this, but I hope that these organizations continue to do their utmost to push their views. Imagine a world where DNS was structured as they envision.
-
Copyright Comments Redux
Andy Oram of CPSR has has a nice reply comment to the Copyright Office's Anti-Circumvention Rulemaking. As slashdot has discussed before, the Copyright Office has a mandate to examine a part of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and decide whether and how to implement it. If you haven't commented, today is your last chance - see the notice for the requirements for filing, and mark your submission as a reply to, say, Time Warner's comment. I just read an article noting that Stephen King would be in violation of this provision of the DMCA if he read his own e-book. -
Copyright Comments Redux
Andy Oram of CPSR has has a nice reply comment to the Copyright Office's Anti-Circumvention Rulemaking. As slashdot has discussed before, the Copyright Office has a mandate to examine a part of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and decide whether and how to implement it. If you haven't commented, today is your last chance - see the notice for the requirements for filing, and mark your submission as a reply to, say, Time Warner's comment. I just read an article noting that Stephen King would be in violation of this provision of the DMCA if he read his own e-book. -
Gender in the Internet Age
Ellen Spertus writes "The latest issue of the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) newsletter on Gender in the Internet Age is well worth reading for people interested in the dearth of female techies. From the editors' introduction: The purpose of this newsletter is to explore how the Internet and other computing advances subvert or reinforce gender roles. Will current trends in computing lead to greater opportunities for both women and men, or will it cement them in their current roles? Will women be creators of software and virtual communities, or will they be disempowered users? How will men's and women's interactions online be different from their interactions in 'real life'? What changes will propagate from the online to the real world?" -
Gender in the Internet Age
Ellen Spertus writes "The latest issue of the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) newsletter on Gender in the Internet Age is well worth reading for people interested in the dearth of female techies. From the editors' introduction: The purpose of this newsletter is to explore how the Internet and other computing advances subvert or reinforce gender roles. Will current trends in computing lead to greater opportunities for both women and men, or will it cement them in their current roles? Will women be creators of software and virtual communities, or will they be disempowered users? How will men's and women's interactions online be different from their interactions in 'real life'? What changes will propagate from the online to the real world?" -
Conference: Governing the Commons
CPSR is holding a conference on the administration and governance of the Internet, on September 24-25 (Friday afternoon and Saturday), in Alexandria, Virginia. Student registration is available at a very modest fee. If any slashdotter attends and wants to report on it, I'll run your report here. -- michael -
Conference: Governing the Commons
CPSR is holding a conference on the administration and governance of the Internet, on September 24-25 (Friday afternoon and Saturday), in Alexandria, Virginia. Student registration is available at a very modest fee. If any slashdotter attends and wants to report on it, I'll run your report here. -- michael