[ncdnhc-discuss] NCDNHC solicitation of candidate views

[Joanna Lane]

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

Enforcing the rights of those currently under-represented at top level. My
candidacy is unique in that I do not earn my living from the internet and
therefore I do not believe that I would have to recuse myself on any issue.

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

Reneging on the bottom up consensus development process, and in particular,
maintaining an ICANN Board structure of non-elected Directors. The present
situation is a perversion of democracy that has fostered corruption and
monopolistic practices of special interest groups.
>> 
>> 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.

A. Notwithstanding that short-term irregularities and difficulties, lack of
ICANN's accountability and enforcement issues are all adversely affecting
stakeholders, the long-term goal of restructuring the organization has to be
the number one problem. This is why I believe it is very important to have a
person whose primary interest is the best interest of the public, and in
particular, the Registrant community, sitting on the Board. I can bring a
common sense perspective to the decidion makers tasked with making
forthcoming structural changes, and ensure an even handed distribution of
power in the ICANN of the future.

>> 
>> 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?

No, and I have stated so publicly. Charging for voting priviliges is a
perversion of democracy.

>> 
>> 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?


As a Board Director, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on
results of the current NC Task Force on this issue. However, I can clarify
certain personal statements I have made in the past.

My personal position is perhaps somewhat unusual for one who advocates for
the rights of individual domain name holders, in that I do support the
notion that IP rights may exist in some Domain Names, under certain
circumstances, whether or not a trademark is in force. This position derives
from more than 25 years working in media, mainly in film and television
production. It is a common misconception that the industry centers largely
on the major Hollywood Studio system, when in fact, the industry thrives on
its ability to promote independent producers, comprised of numerous small
businesses and individuals, worldwide. For those particular stakeholders, it
is necessary to ensure IP in original artistic and literary works is
protected.  The commidity on which success depends is the source material
into which precious development funds are invested over many years prior to
a work being actually produced and distributed in the public domain. Not all
IP in source material is trademarkeable. Whether we like it or not, there is
a case to be made for Domain Names, as any other form of media, being vested
with IP rights, whether or not these are just strings that are perceived to
be domain names, or actually registered into the DNS. I stress that these
views are related to a specific industry in which I have knowledge and
experience, and of course cannot be viewed in isolation and must be balanced
against other aspects.
 
Having said that, in May 2001, I endorsed the document "A Response to WIPO 2
Report" by Professor Rod Dixon,
http://www.cyberspaces.org/wipo2response.html

With respect to famous names, I am quoted in that document by Professor
Dixon as follows:-

"Some would argue that this issue does not involve individual rights at all.
Instead, the protection of personal names for celebrities is camouflaged as
a matter concerning individuals and personal interests of identity when, in
fact, an agenda to protect corporate rights holders and intellectual
property interests is being advanced.  ³At the heart of the matter, we are
not talking about Julia Robert's rights to her own name as a DN at all. This
is about website content, and who is allowed to represent a real person and
who is not. It is simply nonsense to suggest that ICANN should become
embroiled in any policy that sets out to promote one entity's rights to
exploit a person's name, while another entity is denied, neither entity
being the individual themselves. Nevertheless, that is how those to whom
famous names are beholden would enforce this policy.² Joanna Lane, May 10,
2001, (ML of the WG-Review)."

It would be fairly easy to prepare a list of questions to prove the point
that such a policy is inworkeable, such as "famous to whom?" I am generally
regarded as a celebrity with respect to my involvement in the Children In
Need charity and equally, I am British Academy Award winner. (CV URL:
http://www.internetstakeholders.com). Nevertheless, I would not expect a
UDRP panelist to have ever heard of me. "What can be the objective
criteria?" The answer is none, because it is a subjective issue.

>> 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?

A broad restructuring to give greater representation to the Registrant
community in all it's forms. I have strongly advocated for an IDNH/O
constituency over a considerable period of time and have stated my support
for Director Auerbach's Resolution. That is not to disregard the changed
dynamics since ccTLDs announced their departure from DNSO, and I appreciate
that the NCDNHC also has a proposal under review. As a result, I believe a
DNSO IDNHO Constituency can only be effective if working in partnership with
sister organizations in those Supporting Organizations that may arise in the
future, and there are various possibilities for how that could come about
that are currently under discussion. I would view any proposal for an IDNHC
in that light. The ALSC may make recommendations that have a dramatic impact
on the involvement of Individual Registrants. As a Board Member, I believe
the important thing at this moment in time is to be flexible to change, but
for the sake of argument, if we assume an IDNHC were to go ahead within the
existing DNSO structure:-

Their role and charter should be defined by using Best Practice (BP)
procedures to arrive at consensus (or not) of the GA, whose membership
currently includes those disenfranchised by the present structure and using
the GA to self-organize. When complete, BP will ensure a fair and even
handed treatment of Alternate Proposals that may arise, and allow other
constituencies, who will be impacted by the new constituency, to
participate. 

I have in the past drafted membership criteria for an IDNH, but am not
directly involved in any proposals at this time.

The Best practices documents, which I co-authored together with Bill Lovell,
can be found at:-


The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)

This is work in progress, with Part III and IV to be published shortly.

> 

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

I am sorry to see the ccTLDs leave DNSO. However, let's see the exact terms
they seek before judging whether or not a separate country SO is more
fitting. It is not for the Board to initiate an offer, it is for the ccTLDs
to make their proposals known. I reserve my position until I hear a clear
position statement by the ccTLDs on this issue. The present ccTLD
consituency may not be able to deliver all countries under one Agreement,
and it may be that more than one proposal will be forthcoming. It really is
not appropriate for me to second guess what the proposal(s) might be.
>> 
>> 8.  Do you favor a public voice and representation on the board for the
>> community at large.  How would you define At Large?

Absolutely. My campaign platform is focused on the Registrant community of
DNSO. At Large is the general public. Clearly the results of ALSC will have
a profound effect on the future of ICANN and forthcoming recommendations
should not be underestimated.

"Widespread agreement" claimed by those running the current organization,
arises from a narrow sub-set of the community that is not qualified to
represent the public interest in terms of the global economic, political and
cultural impact of ICANN's technical policy coordination. This is a
fundamental structural problem of ICANN.

The risk of running a "thin" ICANN is that the bigger picture tends to be
ignored, and that's a dangerous state of affairs for even one centralized
decision. While remaining "thin" may reduce mission creep, (and that may be
the popular position) it does not eliminate the problem of
social unrest that may arise from poor centralized solutions. This is a
matter of concern that needs addressing, however thick or thin ICANN
becomes. 

All industries are regulated on behalf of the public and what is missing
here is a government that can legislate on a global scale, that should be
guiding ICANN in its decision making process. The GAC is not such a
regulatory body, but perhaps it should be. Failing that, ICANN must, at the
very least, directly involve public interest organizations, Individual
registrants, At large interests and give the general public as a whole
greater consideration in its policy development. Then, and only then, can
ICANN be trusted to decide what are and what are not centralized issues for
itself to address, and in the meantime, any decisions it makes are highly
questionable. I seek to correct that anomaly by the most expedient means
possible, by direct, top level policy making practices.


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

All Board members should be elected by direct vote, not appointed. I believe
that ICANN should be run democratically, not as a dictatorship of special
interest groups. 
>> 
>> 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?

The answer to this question centers on whether or not you agree that
societal issues and technical issues are mutually dependant. I happen to
think that they are, and you only have to look at the ICANN correspondence
files of the last 6 months to see that the current decision makers are being
forced to acknowledge the impact of societal issues. I am in the camp that
does not believe that ICANN is a highly specialized technical entity,
whereby only certain privileged parties are qualified to make decisions, and
I do believe that it should be more accountable to society, and that
certainly includes non-commercial domain name holders. The public have a
right to not only observe, but also to participate.

One area where the social impact of technical decisions is most apparent is
the WHOIS issue. I have written fairly extensively on the WHOIS topic
generally on the ga-sys sub-list in May and have reported two documents and
various comments that set out my position. This may be referenced at
http://www.icaanworld.org/guide.htm.

In short, I believe that ICANN should not be openly promoting a position on
WHOIS at this time that clearly breaks the Privacy Laws of the 15 nations of
the European Union, Israel, Argentina, and possibly other countries that may
well follow suit in due course. On such a sensitive issue as Privacy, the
Board is in an irreconcilable position in my opinion on this issue. Whatever
the network troubleshooting and TM issues may be, these must be balanced
against the societal issues with greater care than I have so far seen in
evidence.

Finally, I would make one further point on public involvement in the ICANN
process that is key to its success.  I agree that on those issues as to
which ICANN makes policy, it should do so only when there has been a
documented consensus among impacted parties. To that end, myself and
co-author Bill Lovell initiated the Best Practices Initiative in the GA, and
have submitted Documents to the ALSC for consideration. Best Practices makes
it clear how the input into this "open process" is duly considered,
documented and assimilated in a bottom-up ICANN development process.
Although Part I (Principles and Definitions) and Part II (Flow Chart) are
published, Parts III (Timeline Guide) and IV (Impact Statement) are still
work in progress. Something, if not this, of it's kind, must be used to
scrutinize what purports to be consensus based recommendation by DNSO.
Without such, it easy for the ICANN Board and staff to justify decisions
that bypass the DNSO, or indeed any SO.

As a Board Director, I would be looking for evidence of reasonable outreach,
evidence of impact on affected stakeholders and evidence of the process used
to arrive at policy recommendations from the supporting organizations. This
is something that Best Practices provides.

I have found less time to spend on this task than ideally I would have
liked, but thank the NCDNH for the opportunity.


Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)





>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>