[council] Re: DNSO seat on ICANN board -- from Jamie Love

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Thanks for the concern, Nii.
I hope it's not too late yet.

It's time for DNSO Review Committee to start to review
the two elections we have conducted.

YJ


> Hi All,
>
> A very good suggestion we did not follow. We infact, we did not even
discuss
> the candidates at all before voting. It leaves an unfortunate feeling that
> we were not looking to find the better candidate or that we knew which way
> we were going to vote already.
>
> I am not sure if thats the normal practice.
>
> Regards,
> Nii
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: YJ Park <yjpark@myEpark.com>
> To: <dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>; <ppoblete@nic.cl>; <quaynor@ghana.com>;
> <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; <mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com>;
> <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>; <rcochetti@netsol.com>;
> <h.hotta@hco.ntt.co.jp>; <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <sastre@anwalt.de>;
> <zakaria@univ-nkc.mr>; <vandrome@renater.fr>; James Love
<love@cptech.org>;
> <kstubbs@corenic.org>; <erica.roberts@melbourneit.com.au>;
> <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>; <cchicoine@dkwlaw.com>; <aaus@mpaa.org>;
> <gcarey@carey.cl>; Peter de Blanc <pdeblanc@usvi.net>; Jonathan Cohen
> <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:18 AM
> Subject: Re: DNSO seat on ICANN board -- from Jamie Love
>
>
> > NC Collegues,
> >
> > Appreciating James Love and Peter de Blanc's proactive motion to
> > have a communique with Names Council, I would like to suggest that
> > NC invite those nominees at least once before NC election to have
> > chances to know the candidates more.
> >
> > This is going to be NC's second experimental election after NC's first
> > noisy and defamable election process.
> >
> > This can be a good opportunity for us to cross-question each other.
> > Hope I can hear from you asap before NC teleconference.
> >
> > YJ
> >
> > > Dear NC member
> > >
> > >
> > > As you know, I am one of the four candidates for the DNSO seat on
> > > the ICANN board. For those who don't know me, I am the Director
> > > of the Consumer Project on Technology. http://www.cptech.org.  I
> > > have also created a page for the DNSO election here:
> > > http://www.cptech.org/jamie/dsno-icann.html, which contains links
> > > to my personal home page and comments on various ICANN issues.
> > > This is probably more than you want to know, but if you have any
> > > questions, send me a note at love@cptech.org.
> > >
> > > I would like give a brief argument in favor of my candidacy.  For
> > > many Internet users, ICANN is thought of as being too much
> > > controlled by big business interests, and too indifferent to free
> > > speech and the rights of individuals or other civil society
> > > concerns.  If the Names Council sent me to the ICANN board, it
> > > would send a signal that ICANN will represent a more diverse set
> > > of voices.   By putting an ICANN critic on the board, ICANN would
> > > show that it can tolerate criticism.  This would benefit ICANN.
> > >
> > > I hope that having a strong voice for civil society concerns
> > > would also help ICANN avoid decisions that are particularly off
> > > putting to the public, such as a UDRP policy that does not
> > > protect free speech, lack of concern over legitimate privacy
> > > interests, or things like the $50,000 non-refundable fee for
> > > *all* testbed TLD applications, to mention only a few issues.
> > >
> > > With respect to issues that concern DNSO constituencies, I would
> > > like to offer the following comments.
> > >
> > > 1. Intellectual Property Constituency
> > >
> > > I believe it is appropriate to protect trademark rights in domain
> > > names, but only subject to appropriate limits, and ICANN should
> > > also avoid anticompetitive policies.  I do not think that
> > > trademark owners will benefit, in the long run, from efforts to
> > > create "super" trademark rights in domain names, or by
> > > restricting the growth of new TLDs.  The expansion of the root
> > > should solve many trademark concerns, by providing greater
> > > distinctiveness in the name space, and create room for restricted
> > > domains controlled by various interest groups.
> > >
> > > 2.  Business Constituency.
> > >
> > > I don't think it is in the business constituency interest to push
> > > to have ICANN as a powerful Internet regulator.  Businesses have
> > > benefited from the past open and relatively free nature of the
> > > Internet.  There are some that want ICANN to have a tight grip on
> > > the Internet, and if they are successful, ICANN would become the
> > > source of endless problems for everyone.  I am in favor of
> > > various ways to limit ICANN's mission and power.
> > >
> > > 3. ISP constituency.
> > >
> > > The ISP constituency should oppose, as I do, the overly broad and
> > > anticompetitive outcomes of many UDRP proposals, the IPC
> > > proposals on trademark protection in new TLDs, and the artificial
> > > restrictions on the TLD name space.  IPCs should also be
> > > concerned about ICANN's power in other areas.  I share these
> > > concerns.
> > >
> > > 4. gTLD constituency.
> > >
> > > NSI has had too much monopoly power in the registry business, and
> > > I support efforts to create new competition for NSI.  But as a
> > > gTLD, NSI should be concerned, as I am, about the possibility
> > > that ICANN will want to micro-manage new TLDs.
> > >
> > > 5. Registry constituency.
> > >
> > > Many registries have assumed that trademark interests are so
> > > strong they have to agree to overly broad protections in the UDRP
> > > to avoid litigation.  I think this is a mistake, and that it is
> > > worth rallying user interests to press for better UDRP policies.
> > > The registries should not consider the past as a roadmap to the
> > > future in terms of what the user interests can do in terms of
> > > influence in the US Congress or WIPO.  The registries should not
> > > encourage ICANN to become a highly regulatory agency.  The
> > > registries should support a large expansion of the root for new
> > > TLDs.
> > >
> > > 6. ccTLD constituency.
> > >
> > > If national government indeed have the practical ability to
> > > control ccTLDs, then there is little reason for ICANN to manage
> > > the ccTLDs.  The ccTLDs should not be paying high fees to ICANN,
> > > and with the exception of very narrow technical issues, ICANN
> > > should not interfere with the ccTLD operations.  The ccTLDs
> > > should make their own policies on issues such as trademarks,
> > > copyright protection, privacy and other matters.  Public concerns
> > > about these issues should be addressed to the relevant national
> > > governments, or ccTLD registry self governance organizations, but
> > > not to ICANN.  I am in favor of decentralization and diversity
> > > as ways of avoiding anyone exercising too much control over the
> > > Internet, and think the ccTLDs have similar interests.
> > >
> > >
> > > 7. Non-Commerical Constituency.
> > >
> > > I have been an active member of the NCC discussion lists, where a
> > > wide range of civil society concerns have been discussed.  The
> > > NCC voters should consider if it is important for the ICANN board
> > > to have a strong voice for NGO interests and the rights of
> > > individuals, for free speech, for privacy and freedom, and other
> > > NCC concerns, and which candidates are likely to emphasize these
> > > issues.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your consideration of my candidacy.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > James Love
> > > Director, Consumer Project on Technology
> > > love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org
> > > http://www.cptech.org/jamie/dnso-icann.html
> > > v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176
> > >
> >
> >
>