[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ICANN-EU] Re: Questions to the candidates

Iīll try to answer some questions here in a bundle. Just because i donīt
comment everything here, doesnīt mean I donīt take it serious. I just 
have lotīs of things to do with the things we discuss here. I think we can
fairly agree, that they donīt only take place at ICANN or in this ML, ok?

[Questions from Thomas Roessler]:

>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.

I guess it is the other way around; there is no specific european or
national interests to be protected at ICANN, but there are some Internet
related interests that are protected in Europe through ICANN. In several
ICANN related areas like domain registration vs. trademark lawyers, network
solutions vs. decentrally organized registration etc. the ideas and solutions
discussed with ICANN or hopefully the netizens might be overruled by
European as well as other laws. 

Also, issues which do not seem to be ICANNīs issues now, like freedom of
speech (technically: free flow of information) and conditions of gaining 
domains and numbers might be influenced by European laws already existing
(German bann on hate speech for e.g.) or upcoming (Cyber Crime Convention).

>- 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

I am currently working as a journalist writing articles, holding lectures
and making expertise statements, sometimes as an expert witness in lawsuits
in the area of electronic networks, the culture room Internet and security /
freedom issues. For ICANN wonīt pay for anything except the travel costs,
iīve had some brainstorming also with other people on what has to be 
financed. I see 2, 3 things here:

- Personal stuff 
  (living, eating, culture, mobile telecommunication)

- Organizational stuff and staff: 
  (office simulation, IP, telecommunication, staff, beaming & transportation)
ICANN related, this expands to

- necessary additional structure for transparency and support

I am used to financing the first two issues anyhow; the work on issues,
material for this work, travel costs etc. get paid through making money
with articles, lectures, expertise etc.
Certainly, participation in ICANN as a director will cost time. It is also
clear that I will be able to contribute know-how through this process
to my "normal" work. It is very important for me that this is a transparent
process. I have nothing to hide here in general and I donīt sign *any* NDA 
(non disclosure agreements) in my work.

After some years of experience I do know that transparency is not only a 
wish or a good idea but (hard) work. I do not manage to report much of
the stuff that is happening at the conferences and discussions i attend 
outside the local Chaos Computer Club Berlin weekly meeting and my
discussions with journalist. I try to better this with my data-travel-reports
(which are available in german only right now on my www.datenreisen.de) and
I am working to improve this a lot.

Iīve already heard what industrial people mean when they say "we need
an advisory-board behind the European candidate" I am quiete shure that
I donīt want any industrial sponsored advisory-board, even if it is
mask behind European or German governmental structures.

On the other hand, for this is a european-job, there is the serious
need for a regular meeting in RL of representatives from european user-
organisations and some consultants from the lawyers virtual reality.

There are some discussions already about this question and no matter who
gets voted I think this is important. For such a structure should not
only be transparent but also independent and most of possible funding 
organisations might try to influence it through funding, a mixed funding
might not be the best solution; Iīd prefer to find a funding structure
which is mostly compatible. 

Of course we could try out Bruce Schneiers "Street Performer Protocol"
or try to organize wide-spread fund raising, but the candidate whoever
it is going to be wonīt really have the time for it; support from others
is important.

For sure is: there are scientific institutions, where this could take
place, we donīt have to create user organisations (theyīre already there).
Even the money exists already, itīs only somewhere else.

I didnīt nominate myself as a candidate to put my personal will over
others, although I joined enough conferences, mailing-lists and meetings
to know what I donīt want. So Iīll try to be open for your input, 
also on the finance question, as on others.

[Questions from Alexander Svennson]:

>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?

I am not sure anyone expects things to get better through new TLDs, there
is only more space for confusing and struggle. For I do not want to warm up
discussions again and again, UDRP seems to be less worse than several
national and/or international trademark lawyers dreams. I am not a
friend of senseless squatting, but do like adbusting and NGOīs taking
companies-name domains to support discussions on products and their 
health for e.g. - the net is and should stay a public space, and this
includes domain name issues. It canīt be, that companies all over the
planet privatize words. That is not only ridiculous, but is also 
decreasing public space.

>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?

Everything is politics. ICANNīs decision on the architecture of the net
do have an impact on the communication space internet. For I reclaim
this as a public and not only commercial space, this is politics in
a public space. Governments on this planet are less and less keeping
public space and privatizing more and more to companies for whatever
reason. So I think it is important to see the impacts of the decisions
in a political way; independent from virtual realities of governments

>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?

Decisions should be as decentrally organised, understandable and
democratic as possible, but also as efficient as necessary. 

[Also from Alexander Svennson]

>It's obvious that no At Large
>candidate will campaign for intransparence and backwardness.

Are you shure? I am not. Not after reading the 70 introductions of the
other candidates...

best regards,

Andy M.-M.

"chaos will reign" - MPAA Anwalt Leon Gold im Prozess gegen 2600 wg. DeCSS

Andy Mueller-Maguhn, andy@ccc.de, Postfach 640234, D-10048 Berlin, Germany
Key ID 331F9781 - Fingerprint 4996 E00B 317E AA17 9753 4678 9485 AD2A