[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: NCDNHC solicitation of candidate views

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear NCDNHC Members,
As a candidate I want first to apologize for my Frenglish. I tried to keep 
it not too long, but responding seriously calls sometimes for some detailed 
explanations.


>1. What do you think would be your most significant contribution to the 
>ICANN Board?

Not to say "yes", when I do not know or I think "no".

This would necessarily create a consensus and a document flow problem very 
easy to solve: to discuss things about the ICANN role and I can understand.


>2. What is your most serious criticism of the performance of the ICANN 
>Board to date?

Unrealistic mission creep.

The ICANN is like building a vision of the world by its own. The momentum 
and the size of the Internet probably hides that to them. Instead of 
working on the Internet infrastructure they accept more and more structure 
oriented (governance) preoccupations. A mission creep leading to an 
innovation freeze and to a competition in their own IANA functions fields.


>3. As a Board member, which of the following issue-areas or problems
>would you see as the highest priority? (Please do NOT respond by saying
>"they are all important." We know that. We want to know your PRIORITIES. 
>You may rank them in order of importance if you wish.)
>   A. Structural-organizational issues (e.g., DNSO Review, SO formation,
>        constituting the At-Large, dominance of ICANN policy-making by
>        unelected management and staff)
>    B. Supply industry regulation (registrar-registry relations, consumer
>        protection from unauthorized account transfers, fair access to
>        expired names, etc.
>    C. Intellectual Property protection; e.g., UDRP, WIPO 2, WHOIS
>         access, making sure new TLDs are restricted, etc.
>    D. Expansion of the name space. Rapid conclusion of
>        existing contracts, rapid authorization of new TLDs.


Whole is in whole. This list interrelates issues and actually predefines 
some sot of policy I would not support as far too complex and out of the 
ICANN mission. The main point for me is "less ICANN".

But I also fully understand that one person in a group does not change the 
policy of that group. At least by black magic. So this list is also a good 
example of the real life obligations. I have been of the board of several 
large non-profits.


1) In this list there is one single thing which belongs to he IANA function 
and which is not performed at all. This is the NIC duty, i.e. rapid 
registration of new TLDs (Point D).


2)  ICANN has to decide if it wants to be a non profit association aiming 
at the common good with Membership legal rights. Or if wants to be a 
corporation striving for its budget coverage with contractual legal rights. 
It cannot be both as Joe Sims makes it pretend.

In the first case as an association of constituencies representing all the 
real major concerns of the Global Internet community, I am interested in 
defending and improving it. In the second case as a real problem to the 
development of many and to the network innovation I could only fight it. 
(Point A)


3) The situation which has developed is not acceptable in term of 
non-protection of the Registrants and of no-concerns for the Users (the 
real alternative root is the last year ICANN root: due to the current DN 
policy, "Error 404" is a common response).

I am active in pushing for the birth of the Registrant Constituency, I try 
to relate and push Consumer organizations as well and I am very strict on 
the privacy protection aspects. (Point B).

4) Intellectual property protection has been misunderstood. I expect the 
market, the real life and new TLDs will make this progressively understood. 
Domain Names have no more value than boxes to carry products. What has 
value is the product not the box. Progressively some IP protection people 
and TM owners start understanding that. I professionally manage 2000 DNs 
and personally own a few TM. I know my business and non-profit interests 
are not only not protected but endangered by the current ICANN/WIPO 
approach. It will still take time before IP people fully understand it. 
Correcting the UDRP in the meanwhile is a priority due to its real 
inadequacies. (Point C).


>4. Do you believe that the non-commercial constituency should be deprived 
>of a vote on the Names Council if it does not pay the DNSO $30,000 by the 
>end of this year?

Absolutely NOT!

This is not only unfair, financially absurd since NCDNHC members pay the 
other constituency Membership when then purchase a domain names or Internet 
access. IOt is also absurd: if an SO is a support organization, it is like 
cutting his leg to stand better when the other foot is sore.

>5. Do you believe the UDRP procedures are currently biased in favor of 
>complainants and need to be  reformed? Do you believe the substantive 
>policy of the UDRP needs to be significantly changed?  If so, how?

I do not think UDRP is biased on purpose. It is biased by nature.

- when you have time and money to prepare a complaint your case will look 
better than if you are unprepared and have no money to spend on it. When 
you can chose your own judge you would be fool not to chose your own lawyer 
(WIPO is to protect TM owners).
- when you can make a case about something which as no reality like a 
domain name, you are better off in having a judge who is paid only to 
believe that the domain names have an existance by their own..


1) the UDRP document defines every word to be used when dealing with 
requests about domain name, except one word: ... "domain name".

This means that the UDRP has either no value, or it is to take the "domain 
name" in its real meaning of the name of a private property - web site, FTP 
sever, email mailboxes, webmaster office and computer, content, copyrights, 
TMs, etc... - as accessed via the web.

In that case it deals with matters subject to existing laws without 
considering all their aspects and going further than contractual issues: 
this is drum justice. Also it does not consider the only rights to be 
considered: the rights of the users accessing the site.

2) The domain name is one of the ways to access a domain on the nets. There 
are others:  the IP address, the many possible alias names, the search 
engines, etc...  The UDRP should only decide if the name chosen by a site 
owner is or not confusing to the user. IMHO the easiest way to know that is 
to ask ... the users.

UDRP should only be a non-confusion test. Plaintiff and defendant should 
present their model of the site and an on-line explanation of their 
motives. Then a randomly chosen and wide jury should decide. We do that all 
the day long with marketing polls: we should be able to organize that! The 
advantage is that the jury would perfectly know how to handle "famous" mark 
and multinational domain names.

It should also be possible to "take an UDRP test". When selecting a DN one 
could have it challenged by a Jury or through a call to opponents. If the 
DN is confirmed it should be final since the Registrant has demonstrated 
his good faith.


>6. Do you favor the addition of an individuals' constituency to the DNSO? 
>Do you favor any broad restructuring the DNSO constituency structure or 
>more limited reforms?

I favor constituencies for every major group of concerns among the Global 
Internet Community. This includes Registrants (Individual and Bulk), 
Individual Users (these are those who make the Net and we need to know 
their positions) - Consumer Organizations - SMEs as they are the core of 
the Internet, DNS Developers as many DNS developments are to come or 
considered: we must coordinate and control; specialized TLDs, ...

A simple reform of the ICANN bylaw will permit that SO become only 
Constituencies Working Groups. A constituency should be able participate to 
the council of all the SOs it wants. Some new SOs should probably be created.

As such I support an NCSO. This does not mean that I wish such NCSO to be 
something independent with three BoD Members. But that NonComm issues might 
be debated in relations to TLDs, IP addressing Plan, @large, etc...  while 
the NCDNHC could still participate in the DNSO.

We are in the core of the most fluid network system in the History and we 
abide by the rigid outdated structures of Joe Sims. This is out of context.


>7. Do you favor the secession of the ccTLDS from the DNSO and the creation 
>of a separate country code SO?

I just responded to that. There are ccTLD specific issues. and there are 
TLD specific issues the have to ccTLDs share in. Obliging them to chose is 
really absurd.


>8.  Do you favor a public voice and representation on the board for the 
>community at large.  How would you define At Large?

I Chair probably the only specific @large association (france at large). I 
suppose the @large should be the most motivated Internet Participants. They 
range from the boss of ATT to my youngest niece. The real point is that an 
@large is someone who wants to participate. Their voice is important. They 
also bring the different cultures to the ICANN and help its cohesion in 
being elected by the entire world.

Their exact organization, the number of Directors, etc... is something we 
have to carefully balance. There are plenty of solutions. I think advisable 
that the people concerned by netwide infrastructure issues be equally 
represented as the stakeholders in the use of the system.


>9.  Do you think board members should be elected by direct vote or 
>selected indirectly. Why?

I think they should be elected by constituencies and that five regional 
constituencies might be of use. The exact vote method should be left to 
constituencies.


>10. Should board decisions continue to be made in private closed meetings 
>that are open to participation by certain privileged parties but not to 
>the public for observation?

I would like to promote an Internet based management system as they have 
started using in Estonia. For nearly one year the Government is on the net 
and progressively the citizens may participate in real time to Government 
Meetings and decisions. FIles and contributions are on-line. The country is 
small but there are more than 3 millions people - far more than ICANN. The 
system is going to be extended to cities, administrations, universities...

I would promote - in not saying "yes" when I think "no" :-) - the need of 
such a system, including the voting procedures etc... This to permit a 
quick, commonly available, well known by all system, extended to the whole 
ICANN. I whish this to permit different languages to be used, to see the 
number of costly and secret conference calls to decrease, and to reduce the 
impact of the hidden meetings due to the de facto inforced transparence.

I also see that as a way to fight the digital and language divide. Everyone 
being more equal in front a an email based tool than when spending hours on 
sophisticated conference call system with some being
paid by their organization and other not.


I thank you for your time and for your questions.

Jefsey Morfin