[ICANN-EU] Answers to Questions by Svensson and Roessler

["Constantine S. Chassapis" <cschassapis@acm.org>]

My answers to the questions posed by Alex Svensson (AS) and Thomas Roessler
(TR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



AS1. Top level domains (TLDs) ... position on the new TLDs ... issues such
as trademark protection ... Speed of the addition, chartered vs.
non-chartered TLDs? ... happy with the way ICANN handled the matter until
now? ... happy with ... UDRP?



New TLDs are currently necessary. Which ones, how many and how fast is a
difficult issue. I believe that some new domains, high in the taxonomy, like
.art, .sci, .news, .eu, etc. must be rapidly implemented.

Adding new TLDs in a slow pace might be advantageous from the point of view
of stability and allows the possibility of some shift in the technology that
might completely resolve that issue. For example, if the hierarchy is
abandoned, ..., or if completely free naming systems become possible ... How
this might happen is also a very interesting PhD theme and a very complex
political issue. (Complex in the sense that it will be difficult for some
entities to abandon powers that currently have under the current technology.
Probably we will see coexistence of global nets soon in the future).

Trademarks must, for the time being, be protected. We are in a transitional
period globally and you need to have some structure to demolish. Demolishing
something chaotic produces chaos. When you have something specific (like the
trademark system) to demolish you start studying how to do it, when to do
it, etc, and this might produce interesting solutions, under the condition
of "fair play". It is certain in my mind that in the future, Internet will
transform society and economics so deeply that issues of trademarks probably
in the future will be completely differently approached!

As Marc Schneiders said "Courts are too expensive for many small business
owners or ordinary people. The time UDRP gives to file is too short too
raise funds, unless you are big".

This is the whole political issue hidden behind a technological issue
somewhat dry, i.e. "IP numbers, domain names, protocols and ports". How the
"poor" can be equal or can be made to be equal in their confrontation with
the "rich", irrespectively of who is right and who is wrong. UDRP is a good
start in theory. Needs reform. It worked for some cases; it was unfair for
many others. This question of fairness is the responsibility of ICANN, and
as Mr Schneiders said, any rules, old, or reformed ones must be "applied as
they are written and intended and not stretched to mean anything to please
the IP and TM people" ... or any strong and big lobby, company, etc. I add.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
AS2. Political role ... ICANN's current and future role ... any political
role? Should and can it be prevented from playing such a role? Is it
desirable to have candidates considering possible political consequences?



Technology is politics. And, ... magic ... as Arthur Clarke once said
(remember? ... "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic"!). Magic to whom? Not to the creators or implementers of any
technology. Magic to the eyes of the many that are uninformed or uneducated.
And here enters politics. People are responsible to be cultivated in arts
and in sciences and to understand technology. But the governors should also
be the guarantors of the "fair play". Information and opportunity should be
equally accessible to any physical person (or small businesses) as is to any
institutionalised entity (and to the large businesses).

So, is ICANN part of the "governors"? What do you think? I think yes! As
long as technology needs the naming hierarchy (or as long as it is made to
need that hierarchy), ICANN has political power, and anyone involved is a
political person. ICANN cannot be prevented from any political role. In any
possible organizational structure, ICANN will have political role, and the
healthiest thing to do is to accept it from the beginning and not try to
hide it. If sometime, somehow, or somewhere the fact that ICANN is political
is hidden, then, unfair influences will be hidden too. The influences will
always be there. Let them be visible! We must try to keep them visible!

It is desirable to have candidates considering possible political
consequences!



----------------------------------------------------------------------
AS3. Role of the At Large members ... what role should the At Large members
play in the future? Should they have any role in between the elections and
if so, which?



At large members should make their essential role the effort to enhance
their function and their influence. Increasing their influence means that
the big biz and other orgs will lower their own (probably not without
fighting back). Why this is necessary? Well, to start, for reasons of "fair
play" of course, more philosophically, for reasons of democracy, but more
importantly, I believe, for reasons of pure and simple logic!

Technology runs! It accelerates continuously (as almost everything else
around us). That means, that, probably, the technology to implement a new,
faster, more just, easier, more effective Internet is already here, or is
coming fast. The investments though, that the big biz make on current or
older technology do not pay back so fast. So, ..., they delay things! So we
try to change that. We just ask for fair play. That's all!

Hey I am not saying here that big biz is something evil. This is another
story for another email (they may be, or they may not). I am just trying to
say that as internet changes everything, so the role of big biz will be
changed too, and since I realized that probably earlier than some other
fellow netizens, I am expressing that loud and clear! The faster the future
arrives, the better!

It is obvious from what I have already said that @ large members should have
active roles in between elections. Which roles? They may for example form,
officially or unofficially, control boards, discussion forums, and support
directors that try to enhance the role of @ large members.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
TR1. You are asking for a nomination ... you want to speak up for At Large
Members', that is netizens', interests ... What are these interests, as far
as ICANN's field of activity is affected?



For start, I agree with Mr Lutz Donnerhacke that "You should not restrict it
to the @large members ... The average netizen is much more important". So,
what is the main interest of the average netizen regarding ICANN? As I
already pointed in my answers to AS1-3, the whole point is "fair play":

Provide and secure the opportunity to every person to express himself or to
make money in or through the Internet preserving at the same time the rights
of every other person that uses the same medium. You remember of course the
old dictum from Voltaire that "my freedom ends there where yours starts".

Please, before leaving the above paragraph note that in the essence of
democracy is tolerating the existence of its enemies. That also applies for
my Internet thoughts. That's fair play! So, if there is some group of people
with views totally against some other group, fair play means you provide
both groups with the same resources.

I really believe that the future of the current hierarchical naming and
organizational structure is short. So most probably "structures organized
from above" like ICANN, will not be present in a future internet. I believe
that self-organization will be much more important in the future. That said,
I realize that any current organizations involved, national, multinational,
or other, will try to influence technology towards a path that they consider
suits them most. Obviously the @ large members form such an (unstructured
for the moment) organization. I don't believe that the current ICANN wishes
to organize this group, but that does not mean that this will not (somehow)
happen!

Anyway, I consider my duty as an @ large member to call attention to those
"political" thoughts of mine, because, up to this point, I haven't observed
anything similar in the messages of my fellow netizens in this email list.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
TR2. Do you believe there are specific European or national interests to be
protected at ICANN?  Please try to define these interests, and tell us what
you think about them.



A global network, normally, does not perceive geographical limits. If
somehow geographical limits emerge, something is not completely global yet!
What is this? It is the local legal systems, the local cultures, the local
histories, the local religions, but, for the moment, during this immature
phase of the global net, language is, in my point of view, the most
important. Here comes Europe, and here comes the national interests issue!
These issues are not particularly related to Internet. They are related to
the contemporary tendency of our civilization to form higher (from the point
of view of geographical limits) clusters of cooperation, to the
globalisation of trade, and to the somewhat natural reaction of local
structures to resist their incorporation in the larger groups.

So what about ICANN? Well, the answer is easy again! Fair play! What I said
in answering TR1 also applies here:

Provide and secure the opportunity to every country, or to every local group
within a country, or to groups of countries, to express themselves or to
make money in or through the Internet preserving at the same time the rights
of every other country, or every other local group, or every other group of
countries that uses the same medium.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
TR3. ICANN doesn't pay your bills ... independence from outside influence?


I believe what Mr Schneiders and Mr Donnerhacke believe, that is, that ICANN
pays some bills, like travel expenses. If this is not so, then, from my
position as a member @ large I will support any movement for changing that.

Now, for my part, since I currently have no means for paying my travel and
lodging expenses, I will either be supported by ICANN, (if it has or will
advance such a policy), or I will seek support from the government of
Greece, or from the European Union. If these actions will not end in my
favour, I will seek employment from some Greek big biz, trying to make a
contract that will leave me completely free in my decisions, (leaving
possibly the big biz, in exchange, the opportunity to exhibit having an
employee that it is an ICANN member). In any case, I now declare that I will
make public my contract in case I will be forced to seek employment in the
private sector.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
TR4. What do you expect from additional gTLDs? And
TR5. What are your ideas about the introduction of such domains?



I agree with Mr Marc Lehmann when he says "More freedom, and nicer domain
names. What I do NOT expect is more freedom from law or conflicts, however".
... "If gTLDs get introduced slowly enough, new methodologies of handing
subdomains out might emerge". The idea of Mr Marc Schneiders I believe is
also interesting: "There are third-level domains and they can be used
profitably". All my answers to the above questions also satisfy TR4 and TR5.

Now, Mr Michael Bracker nicely touched a very important issue when he wrote:
"There just will be too many people who want to get the specific domains.
How will the Internet look like in 20 years? Will we be introducing new and
new TLDs? But also this way of introducing more and more of them will come
to an end one time..." As I already said in answering TR1, I don't believe
that the hierarchical naming of things will hang about for much longer.
Newer technology will allow for free names and for a global structure free
from naming hierarchy. That of course does not mean that it is necessary to
destroy any existing or any future hierarchical naming or other structure. I
am certain that future technology will allow many systems to coexist. By the
way, coexistence is also democracy.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
TR6. Do you have any ideas about the future in Internet addressing you want
to speak up for at ICANN?  Any ideas which may go beyond DNS as we know it
today?



In many places in my answers above I spoke about "future technology" and
"self-organization" and "freedom from hierarchical systems". I mean
hierarchies set from above from some org. Most probably the
self-organization I am talking about will create hierarchical structures,
but not on the naming of things. I believe that complete naming freedom will
be, if it is not already, possible in the near future. I am imagining a
global net that again will have some specialized centres that will act as
large yellow pages servers that will guide signals to the correct
destinations. I am imagining a totally free naming system, with no need to
register something somewhere. You will only have to broadcast your "domain"
name and some specifics of your actual address, and then the specialized
centres will handle the rest. It is true that I am not talking OSI layers
model here, but, I am a physicist, not an engineer, so, please, fellow
netizens, let me dream!



Sincerely,
Constantine S. Chassapis
cschassapis@acm.org