[ICANN-EU] Here are my answers to Roessler and Svensson questions

["Griffini Giorgio" <grigio@mediapoint.it>]

Hello,
as promised I'm answering to Roessler and Svensson questions.
Please excuse typos and feel free to ask more if you feel to.

##### Answers to Roessler questions

- You are asking for a nomination for the At Large Elections.  Thus,
  you are most likely claiming that you want to speak up for At
  Large Members', that is netizens', interests in the ICANN Board of
  Directors in some way.
  What are, in your belief, these interests, as far as ICANN's field
  of activity is affected?

**GG: I think most netizen would like to see the "net" operated in 
a neutral and equal opportunity way. Both for commercial and non 
commercial use. I think that the 'At Large' members are mostly 
individuals who are interested to take part of the process of 
choosing future directions about the net. Lobbies already have 
their seats to put in effect pressure to drive the net where they 
think should go. History will tell if these 'At Large' election 
will be the right way to have such kind of partecipation or is 
just a way to cover hidden purposes by showing a partecipation just
on paper and not by facts.  

- 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.

**GG: I think that protection of cultural diversities (not just European 
ones but also African, Asian etc...) should not be a direct concern 
of ICANN. ICANN just *must not* put in effect ways to bind,limit or
in any way making difficult to let each interested party to express 
itself even if this kind expression is called "business" or "religion"
or whatever.
Talking about Europe we just started to look at Europe as mix of 
different cultures and interests and I think that, in general, 
multicultural environments should be handled by delegating to proper
entities within each area of influence. Given few common rules, all 
other details are left to each of these entities. I think this model 
will work not just only for Europe but worldwide.

- ICANN doesn't pay your bills.  Could you elaborate a bit on your
  funding, and how this does (or does not) affect your independence
  from outside influence?

  (For instance, some of you are involved with or employed by large
  telecoms, domain registries or influential interest groups.  How
  can At Large Members be assured that this won't bias your work on
  the ICANN board, possibly in a way which is favorable for your
  employer, but opposed to users' interests?)

**GG: If elected (silly little hope) I expect to being refunded by ICANN on
non trivial expenses done on exercising the duty of Board director like
travel and accomodations (where physical presence is required).  
This would be enough for me.  About the time and the effort needed, 
if load will be heavvy, I prefer to rearrange with my employer for an 
half-duty service to him instead to have his support although I think 
there will be no pressures even in this latter case. 
I'm 36,not married and I have no child so I don't have the need 
(till now) to support a family. 

##### Answers to Svensson questions

1. Top level domains (TLDs)
Even though the TLD introduction process will commence
before the ICANN At Large election, it is likely to
be one of the core ICANN issues for some time to come.
What is your position on the introduction of new TLDs,
regarding issues such as trademark protection mechanisms,
speed of the addition, chartered vs. non-chartered TLDs?
Are you happy with the way ICANN has handled the matter
until now? Are you happy with the dispute resolution mechanism UDRP?

**GG: As told on the ICB survey I think the new TLD will just move in 
the time axis the moment we will need to do a relative big change 
on the way we are currentling thinking and using the DNS system.
Chartered vs non-chartered TLD is just a way to approximate the
trademark protection model by splitting "usage" on several different
classes.. About ICANN handling the matter I feel there is a overload 
of roles and that in the trademark owners environments there is an 
untold desire to achieve on the net what is not yet achieved into 
real life. Global trademark protection is a mess and is a little more 
than half the way into real life. Just to talk about Europe we all have
different laws, rules and protection mechanism. Oh, yes there are treaty 
like the Paris convention but they are more limited in scope than what
trademarks owner would like to have on the net. I think the best way to 
act for ICANN is to blindly reflect the real life situation without 
acting by enhancing o lowering current protection pratices.
This is more difficult to do than say,I admit. 
About the current UDRP I think that is a just little step on the way 
and I agree with it. Howewer, if it will shows itself wrong, too much binding,
or too much open to misuse I think we have all the ways to fix it over 
the time by making it stronger or smoother.

2. Political role
There has been a lot of debate on ICANN's current and
future role. Does ICANN or should ICANN have any political
role? Should and can it be prevented from playing such
a role? Is it desirable to have candidates considering
possible political consequences? 

**GG: If we look at the net as an example of 'openness' and all of us, 
the current netizens, would like to keep this as a strong value, 
then yes, ICANN have a political role. We mostly live in countries 
where - more or less - "openness" is viewed as a value. On some 
other countries this is instead viewed as a danger and any ICANN 
decision made on behalf of "openness" will have a more than trivial
impact. If ICANN should... it depends on how strong we believe in this
value but I think that delegation (on the basis of multi-cultural diversity)
would be a way to lower the probability that ICANN actions will be taken
as a way to interfere with political choices for each region of influence.


3. Role of the At Large members
There is currently no ICANN decision on the future role
of the At Large membership. It has not even been decided
whether there will be any further direct elections of
ICANN directors by the At Large members. In your opinion,
what role should the At Large members play in the future?
Should they have any role in between the elections and if so, which?

**GG: I think that this 'At Large' election is a good check point to see
what will be the role of ICANN itself. If this this election will 
fail (by bringing up a Board with low quality or endorsment by netizens)
we all will see what will happen to ICANN consideration and considering
that 'we are the net' and is so simple to put in place alternate root 
systems I think the situation will rapidly converge toward other directions.
About the role of 'At Large' directors I think they have the duty to
keep things running smoothly by following the simple rule that 
"On diverging opinions, the best decision is the one which makes unhappy 
all the interested parties, provided that any effort to reduce the unhappiness 
level to the minimum possible is being done"
Entropy? Maybe. :)

 
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards.

Giorgio Griffini