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

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org>]

i cannot agree with you here roberto.
i your scenario was in place the nomination process could easily be captured
by any organized constituancy or group and we would be deprived
of the opportunity for candidates with varying perspectives

ken stubbs
----- Original Message -----
From: <R.Gaetano@iaea.org>
To: <yjpark@myepark.com>; <quaynor@ghana.com>; <nc-review@dnso.org>
Cc: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:53 PM
Subject: [council] RE: [nc-review] Re: DNSO seat on ICANN board -- from
Jamie Love


> Hi.
>
> One obvious thing is to decide if the nomination/endorsement mechanism is
> meaningful or not.
> If it is meaningful, it should count. That is, only the (n) candidates
with
> the top number of endorsements will go on the ballot by the NC.
> Otherwise, how I already noted last year, the nomination/endorsement is a
> farce, and should be abolished.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: YJ Park [mailto:yjpark@myepark.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 September 2000 18:48
> > To: Dr. Nii Quaynor; nc-review@dnso.org
> > Cc: DNSO Names Council
> > Subject: [nc-review] Re: DNSO seat on ICANN board -- from Jamie Love
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>