[ICANN-EU] Re: More on Distinctions Between Candidates

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chris and all,

  Yes I did already.  But thanks.  >;)

Christopher Chiu wrote:

> Jeff--for further information, you may also want to check the Internet
> Democracy Project website under
> http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/answers.htm
>
> The Project has collected answers to its own Internet governance
> questionnaire (which is based on the Yokohama Civil Society statement). I
> have included a sample answer (from Alan Levin, an Africa candidate) below.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Sincerely,
> Christopher Chiu
> Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer
> American Civil Liberties Union
>
> --------------------------------------------
> > Questions for ICANN Board candidates
> > Created by the Internet Democracy Project.
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Issue #1: Free Speech and Intellectual Property
> > 1. The Civil Society Statement argues that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
> > Resolution Policy (UDRP) does not sufficiently protect free speech and was
> > put together in an undemocratic manner.
> >
> > -Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not?
>
> Yes, this is a controversial issue that has not satisfied its purpose.
> There is still much work to be done and more resources required.
>
> > -The Statement proposes that following the At Large elections, the UDRP
> > should be evaluated and put up for a vote of reauthorization. Would you
> > support such a move?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Issue #2: new Top Level Domains
> > 2. The Civil Society Statement provides that ICANN's highest priority be
> to
> > expand the domain name space through the creation of new TLD (Top Level
> > Domain) registries.
> >
> > -Do you believe that expansion of the Internet domain name space should be
> > as unconstrained as is technically feasible?
>
> There must be some consideration given to this.
>
> > -Please explain your reasoning, including an explanation of technical
> > limitations that you believe exist on the addition of new domains.
>
> My understanding is that the limitations are not technical. The
> questions that I have are policy based.
>
> > 3. The Civil Society Statement provides that "ICANN should at all times
> > strive to minimize costs." Recently, ICANN decided to charge $50,000
> > nonrefundable application fees from anyone who proposes to create and
> > operate new Top-Level Domains. Many experts fear that this system will
> > prevent many non-commercial groups and individuals from making worthwhile
> > suggestions.
> >
> > -Do you agree with the decision to charge these fees? Why or why not?
>
> Yes and No. Initially lets see what we can learn from the commercial
> groups. The $50k ensures the seriousness of the first few guinea pigs.
> It is still early days. Keep in mind that domain names currently have
> tremendous IP values.
>
> > Issue #3: The Democracy Deficit
> > 4. The Civil Society Statement suggests that "ICANN currently suffers from
> a
> > democracy deficit." For example, five of seven constituencies in the
> Domain
> > Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) are commercial in nature. Under the
> > current rules, only 5 out of 19 seats on the ICANN Board will be publicly
> > elected.
> >
> > -Do you agree that at least 10 Board seats should be filled by election,
> > rather than only five? Why or why not?
>
> Yes. I believe that the public elections are essential to ensure better
> democracy. There are also many educational and community benefits to the
> elections.
>
> > 5. The Civil Society Statement argues that the DNSO should restructure its
> > constituencies to reduce the apparently disproportionate representation
> > given to business and intellectual property interests. Similarly, a number
> > of experts believe the ICANN Board should encourage the addition of new
> > constituencies (such as a constituency for individual users) to the DNSO
> in
> > order to provide balance.
> >
> > -Should the DNSO should be restructured to reduce the representation of
> > business and intellectual property interests? Explain.
>
> I am not well versed on this issue. From my understanding there is good
> representation from many parties (7 constituencies) in the DNSO. There
> may be a need for evolvement of the DNSO but I do not see any
> overpowering influence of the business or IP interests.
>
> > -Should the DNSO should include a new constituency for individual domain
> > name holders?
>
> I believe that individuals can fit into the current constituencies, but
> I also support a new constituency. I can say that there are more than
> ten cctld's in Africa that do not work. I would like to be effective in
> assisting LIR's to get them to work.
>
> > -Do you think membership rules of constituencies should ensure some
> minimum
> > representation of developing countries (e.g. 10%)? Why or why not?
>
> It is useful to have good representation in all constituencies,
> especially those that relate to developing countries. I don't believe in
> quotas but if there is a problem then it should be looked into.
>
> > Issue #4: Public Records and Transparency
> > 6. The Civil Society Statement calls for ICANN to submit to independent
> > audits.
> >
> > -Do you agree with this provision? Why or why not?
>
> Yes. Resources must first be secured in an appropriate manner.
>
> > -If you believe ICANN should undergo independent audits, what standard of
> > evaluation should these audits follow?
>
> A standard that is agreed upon by the relevant constituency.
>
> > Issue #5: Expansion of ICANN's role
> > 7. Do you feel it is ICANN's place to promote policies relating to conduct
> > or content on the Internet? How so?
>
> No. That goes very far beyond the realm of technical self-management.
>
> > Issue #6: Domain name space as a globally-shared public resource
> > 8. ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee has stated that "the [domain]
> > name space is a public resource." Some observers fear that this assertion
> > provides a basis for excessive state control. Likewise, a number of
> experts
> > feel that the natural monopoly model of country code TLD (ccTLD)
> registries
> > creates an opportunity for excessive control.
> >
> > -Should national governments control public resources in the domain name
> > space? Explain.
>
> No. I have seen a plan developed by my local government to do just this.
> Please have a look at http://afridns.org/ and realize that this needs to
> be done by qualified people that are recognized by LIR's and have the
> ability to control cctld's effectively.
>
> > Issue #7: Privacy
> > 9. The authors of the Civil Society Statement fear that ICANN's policies
> for
> > domain name and address management might discourage the adoption of
> genuine
> > privacy enhancing techniques or undermine the right of anonymity. Some
> > experts question whether ICANN has done enough to ensure individual votes
> > will be kept secret. What is your assessment?
>
> It was particularly difficult for me to get into the Q&A sections. I
> have also received very good feedback from the community to date. I am
> aware that elections.com are performing the election service and I
> believe that they are best suited.
>
> Although I have answered as honestly as possible, I would like to retain
> the right to change my mind on any of the above issues at any time.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alan
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208