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

Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: Questions to the candidates

Dear Andy,

I have never heard about you and, like many wonder, whether or not you
deserve the number of endorsements received. I am pleased that your email
asks interesting and relevant questions. I will provide my own thoughts on
the issues raised by you as soon as possible, ie during the week-end.

Like a previous email writer, I am pleased to have received at least one
single endorsement, which, I proudly state, is not my own.

Carlo Scollo Lavizzari
self-nominated candidate, Europe

except for one intervention until 
At 16:48 17.08.00 +0200, you wrote:
>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