[ga] My letter to NC on DNSO election

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

This is the letter I sent to the NC members regarding the DNSO election.
Jamie

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


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html