[ga] Response to additional questions for Board Candidates

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

> 1.   What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the ccTLD Constituency
> to withdraw from the DNSO?

I am sorry to lose them. The DNSO could have given greater consideration to
their concerns. 

> 
> 2.   Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may result in changes in
> the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.  What
> proposals would you put forth?

I have advocated strongly for an Individual registrants constituency, and
stated my support for Director Auerbach's Resolution. I would also be
willing to put forward Roeland Meyer's proposal as one sensible option:-

<quote>

>A better, more inclusive approach is to let the GA vote for ALL NC seats. No
> kowtowing to special interests here (TM or otherwise). Let blocks of voters
> form PACs, but each individual votes independently. For the DNSO, a voting
> member is one that has color of title to, at least one, domain name.
> Additional domain names do not garner any extra voting rights, however.
> Legally recognized corporate entities can vote along with anyone else.

> This isn't a new suggestion. It has been bandied about for a few years.
> It was even made a part of some of the better proposals for the NewCo, as I
recall. But the IP folks couldn't see how they would have a majority, so it
was given up.

> The FUD that has been spread against this is the "capture-effect" bugaboo. I
> submit that this isn't ameliorated by the current situation, where the TM
> and IP folks have, in effect, captured the current system, in spite of all
> those constituencies.
<end quote>

> 3.   What is your position on current registrar transfer policies?

Deep concern, and for expiring domains. I intend to expand on this issue in
a separate post in due course.

> 
> 4.   What changes would you propose with respect to the UDRP?

In May 2001, I endorsed the document "A Response to WIPO 2 Report" by
Professor Rod Dixon, http://www.cyberspaces.org/wipo2response.html

With respect to famous names, I am quoted in that document as follows:-

"Some would argue that this issue does not involve individual rights at all.
Instead, the protection of personal names for celebrities is camouflaged as
a matter concerning individuals and personal interests of identity when, in
fact, an agenda to protect corporate rights holders and intellectual
property interests is being advanced.  łAt the heart of the matter, we are
not talking about Julia Robert's rights to her own name as a DN at all. This
is about website content, and who is allowed to represent a real person and
who is not. It is simply nonsense to suggest that ICANN should become
embroiled in any policy that sets out to promote one entity's rights to
exploit a person's name, while another entity is denied, neither entity
being the individual themselves. Nevertheless, that is how those to whom
famous names are beholden would enforce this policy.˛ Joanna Lane, May 10,
2001, (ML of the WG-Review)."

> 
> 5.   Do you support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent
> constituencies?

No. To charge for voting rights is a perversion of democracy.
> 
> 6.   Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain
> registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be
> well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this issue?

According to Philip Shepard,
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01156.html

<quote>

"Before we all get carried away in support of a constituency for small
business (SMEs) I think I should point out that the existing Business
Constituency (BC) is currently representing SMEs.

The BC represents thousands of SMEs indirectly via its association
membership. The BC represents them directly with its explicit category for
SME membership - which charges a significantly reduced fee.

SME representation in the DNSO faces the same dilemma as SME representation
in public policy. SME's are typically too small to afford the time/money
commitment to participate in non-core activities. Representation via
industry associations is the typical solution."

<end quote>

At the time of writing, and for at least the last 48 hours, the BC website
at www.bcdnso.org is not resolving, so no further information is currently
available on membership numbers of SME's, but a few months ago, icbtollfree
reported 65 members.

As a member of WG-Review, I wrote to the International Chamber of Commerce
in London and requested details about membership numbers and what kind of
involvement they had with ICANN and the DNSO BC on a day to day basis, if
any. I am still waiting for a response.

Since the BC has claimed membership of SMEs as part of their constituency,
and I believe a sole trader would also be eligible to join directly on a
reduced fee basis, I don't see a problem with under-representation, unless I
see evidence that membership of SMEs is being actively discouraged. However,
I would expect this constituency, as others, to develop a policy for
outreach to encourage new members to join, including a website that not only
resolves, but is also mult-lingual.
 
 
> 7.   The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to
> accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is similarly an
> internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and generates
> recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by ICANN.
> Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding?

No. I think the suggestion to add $1 to the Domain Name Registration and
Renewal fee is one of the most sensible solutions I have heard, but not as a
tax, as an optional payment to join the DNSO.
> 
> 8.   How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout?

If recent allegations of blatant abuses of the sunrise provision are to be
believed, this is yet another sympton of a much larger problem manifesting
itself at this time in various ways, namely accountability. I intend to
address the problem of enforcement in a separate post.
> 
> 9.   What comments would you make regarding ICP-3?

I reserve my position at this time, but can tell you that I do not feel as
strongly as Jefsey.
> 
> 10.  It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were selected and yet
> several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the public's
> growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue?

I am not a party to those contract negotiations and have no idea what is
holding them up, but rollout of new TLDs is obviously important for the
public benefit and I would make this issue my priority.

> 
> 11.  As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in namespace grows;
> how do you propose to solve this problem?

See above.
> 
> 12.  What is your position with respect to the future of .org?

I voted for retaining the .org TLD as open and unrestricted.

> 
> 13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?

Response made in earlier post.


> 
> 14.  Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract?

That depends on whether or not a person is a lawyer who needs no sleep and
has nothing else to do.

> 
> 15.  When would you begin the next round of TLD selections?

Immediately.

Regards,
Joanna

--
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