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

[Paul M. Kane]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions. 

I have also sent some comments to the GA which are archived at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00460.html

I hope this is helpful and I look forward to meeting you all in
Montevideo

Best regards

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

I have been involved in the networking industry at various levels since
1984 and have built up a wealth of experience at both
management and technical operations levels. As a Director one needs to
recognise the need for engaging with people, stimulating
debate and cajoling other Board members listen to the community.  I
would like the ICANN Board to focus on its core objectives,
remembering that ICANN's  reason d'être is as a bottom-up consensus
building organisation acting as a public service trustee to the
global internet community. So whilst many may have "views" on particular
issues, I stand for election not with pre-determined views
but with a real desire to listen to the community and empower the
consensus building process such that the internet's development
may be considered evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

I would like to ensure:
i)  Sufficient time for meaningful consultation amongst all interested
parties.
ii) Good examination of quality arguments both for and against the
position / policy under consideration, with an agreement of the
communities view of consensus of the specific policy proposed.
iii) Stability and functionality such that the proposed policy will
serve to enhance the quality of the "experience" over the current
environment so the majority of affected parties will "embrace" the
enhancement.
iv) the benefits of participation in the ICANN process bring to the
broader community, rather than trying to "mandate" or "regulate"
enforcement mechanisms. Consumer confidence in the internet is high,
and it's ICANN's duty to try to ensure the public service objectives and
bottom-up policy making structures are of paramount importance.



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

As a Board Member one should make decisions based on material submitted,
the quality of the arguments and the information supplied. Much reliance
has been placed upon the Staff to develop positions for ICANN to adopt
and whilst not wanting to micro-manage the work of the ICANN it is
important the focus and direction of ICANN and above all the procedures
of ICANN are followed that are founded on community input.... without
too many bylaw changes!

I think that ICANN can be proud of its progress to date but it needs to
mature into a global organization, representing the interests of a
culturally diverse community many of whom do not use English yet want to
be active in the ICANN internet community. As ICANN matures there
remains much to do.

>
>
> 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.

As the registrars representative I have been working hard to encourage
industry self regulation and therefore "B" .... and I hope the
Registrar's constituency will be in a position to make an announcement
on the issues you raise in Montevideo.

Then it would be "A".  I feel the procedures need to be adopted to
ensure ICANN is a bottom-up consensus organisation.  This should be a
fundamental objective of a Director and it is frustrating that more
leadership as not been shown to focus on procedure that empowers the
internet community to develop structures for more consensus building
policy formation rather than relying on staff initiatives.

Then it would be "C" .... My focus is not on Intellectual Property but
in building consumer confidence and the right of the individual to use a
domain/IP address.  WHOIS is a special interest. 

Then D.  I believe consumers should be offered a diverse range of
services and applications. It is important however to get the current
range of new TLDs out to the market as soon as possible, and ensure
compliance with the agreements they entered into at the time they made
their application.  Then it is important to start a next round of new
TLDs in a manner that is an all inclusive process. The processes of
selection (which inherently means some parties will not be selected)
should provide for diversity of services and gives adequate chance for
registry operators to demonstrate financial and technical stability to
ensure the stable operation of the name space to the global community. 
>
>
> 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?

As I have said before... 
The DNSO needs a Secretariat, and due to the significant work load and
technical resources, a professional support is required.  How it is
funded is a very important question. Having asked ICANN  for funding -
and being turned down, the next option is to ask for contributions from
the users of its services, the Constituencies. If there is not a
"penalty" for non contribution then few Constituencies would pay and the
Secretariat would cease to exist. 

However the ability to pay varies by Constituency and it's membership
and that should be considered when
apportioning the budget payable by each Constituency. Thus the amount
needs to be considered very carefully and the NCDNHC should be able to
place good arguments before the Council to reduce its contribution. Last
year's contribution from the NCDNH has been waived and so the amount
required is for this year. As the
DNSO is already over-funded against current expenditure and if the NCDNH
can demonstrate that they have done their best to collect fees and have
been successful in collecting a significant amount of the fees due, it
should be possible to appeal against any action to remove voting rights
for this year's deficiency.  Next year.. I would urge the
representatives
to table a motion in the NC seeking a dispensation/discount due to the
composition of the non-commercial constituency.

I believe the basic services of the DNSO should be funded by ICANN which
means the on-going contribution from each constituency would be
reduced....

>
>
> 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?

The UDRP is an existing consensus policy of ICANN.
Since the UDRP is currently being reviewed, it would be inappropriate
for me to comment, because I do not have the detailed information from
which to propose a change in policy. I would say that this is a “data
gathering” stage and I look forward to a report from the Names Council
working group who are trying to gather a comprehensive picture.

Overall, however, I believe that having a dispute resolution procedure
that is cheap, efficient and recognizes multiple interests is vital for
the long term stability of the internet.  After all, when these disputes
arise, as they do, it is always possible to go directly to a court, and
that represents a delay and cost to both parties that is often onerous. 
If there are problems with the present UDRP approach, these will be
identified, and then a process to think through any modifications, or
additions, can be undertaken.   I do not have a pre-conceived agenda,
simply I want ICANN to work as a consensus based organization, and I
will look forward to receiving the DNSO Names Council report into the
UDRP with
it's policy recommendations.

>
>
> 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?

The role of individuals and individual domain name holders, to the
extent they are different, needs addressing.  One method would appear to
be for those interested to develop the required materials,
etc. for a proposal to the Names Council for a new constituency.

Another might be to look to the recommendations of the At Large Study
Committee to see if individuals would be better satisfied in the At
Large Membership, if there was a reasonable approach to support their
ongoing participation in some way.  Both options seem to have some
merit.

It is too early for me to comment on either as a preferred option, since
it is clear that input from those interested and affected is needed.  Of
course, while some may disagree, the addition of a new constituency will
need the support and agreement of other constituencies.


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

At this stage it is not clear to me what the ccTLD community is
proposing and therefore I cannot comment on the specifics. That said,
ICB plc provides technical support services to a number of ccTLDs so I
have first hand knowledge of the dynamics of ccTLDs.
The ccTLDs are an extremely diverse body who bring a wealth of
experience and knowledge to ICANN and I feel it is important they remain
supporting the ICANN process.

As for a ccSO, I await community input to the ccTLD proposal to form a
Supporting Organisation and will review the reports of the consultation
process.  I urge the ccTLDs to develop the required materials, stimulate
debate between constituencies and await a developed and sound proposal
to form a ccSO which has consensus. If their proposed ccSO is acceptable
to the community, the ccTLD voice will become a channel of communication
for their local internet communities and strengthen their ability to
make contributions to ICANN.

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

Yes, I do favour a public voice and representation on the Board for the
community at large.... indeed it is essential for ICANN to have
representatives from the broadest of communities, be that cultural,
philosophical or geographical.
As for defining the At Large - it may be possible to provide a check box
at the time a domain name is registered, modified or transferred that
allows the registrant to join the "At Large" community.  That way the
community would in effect be self defining and more importantly would
become an all inclusive group.  I await the At Large's report with much
interest as to how they propose to address this very important group.

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

I prefer directly elected as I welcome diversity.  Interest
groups/constituencies need to have the ability to elect representatives
that don't have pre-conceived ideas and are willing to listen and act
upon sound argument, even if they differ from their own personal views.
What is important is the process is one that builds harmony and
cooperation such that the representative can best serve
their collective interests.  
As a Director one need to think, following a learned consultation
process, of what is best for the organisation as a whole rather than a
specific within the group.
A second approach is to ensure there is representation of diversity.  In
a global community it is very difficult to really get to know a
candidate/Board member, and provided they act as trustees for the global
community, acting on polices that are founded upon a consensus building
process the role of the director becomes one of "guarding the rights of
the community" against capture.

>
> 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?

In a public trust organisation transparency is very important.  One
needs
to be able to see the minutes, understand the arguments, review the
documents submitted to the Board to ensure accuracy both in the formal
data and any interpretations made thereon.  
As for having public observation, there may be some advantage, but it
may be more beneficial to ensure public review of the material under
consideration in advance of the Board meeting so "peer review" may be
undertaken.

Having had the Board in existence for 2 years now I find the lack of
"information" a little disappointing and I will work to change that
procedure. The Board is not supposed to be a "stage" but an environment
where substantive decisions are made reflecting the desires and
aspirations of the internet community.

<><><>