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

[David Corish]

Amadeu,

I also have a few questions, if you would be so kind to answer.  I am a
typical netizen, not very well prepared to discuss tech issues.  However, I
fully understand the TLD selection process, including the now infamous
"sunrise".

1.    What do you say to those netizens now victims to massive fraud and
insider dealings (registry and registars) because of and during the Sunrise
Period for .info?  Remember, the Directors forced this issue down our
throats last year.  As a follow-up question, are you even aware at the scope
of the mess, including the resignation of Robert Connelly?

2.   Should those who predicted the current debacles (including problems
from sunrise) be included within ICANN's structure?  After all, it's obvious
the Staff and Directors did not predict this mess.   Is the BoD taking steps
to include these prophetic individuals in future ICANN decisions?  Why are
the individuals who screamed "fire" last year still shunned by ICANN?  Why
are the individuals responsible for a terrible internet tragedy still
advising you and making decisions for the Directors.

3.  If Vint Cerf is the "father of the internet", has he abandoned his
children and moved in with mistress IPC?

4. When you see other Directors making stupid mistakes (like Esther Dyson's
handling of the November 2000 meetings) why do you remain silent?    And in
case you don't remember, one stupid mistake was praising Afilias's business
model.

5.  Is the "NO" rubber stamp still in the Reconsideration Committee's
office?  Does Hans keep in with him at all times?  Seriously, we need to
know this.

Thanks in advance for your reply.  Yes, it would be nice if you answered all
of my questions.  Please don't judge my questions, just answer them.  After
all, I am an At Large Member (for who knows how long).    I am a chandelier
manufacturer, and it seems every decision ICANN makes concerning new TLD's
negatively impacts my ability to compete on the web.

David Corish
AT LARGE MEMBER #210764


-----Original Message-----
From: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu at nominalia.com>
To: Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu>; yjpark at myepark.com
<yjpark at myepark.com>; vany at sdnp.org.pa <vany at sdnp.org.pa>
Cc: discuss at icann-ncc.org <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Date: Saturday, September 08, 2001 2:18 PM
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: NCDNHC solicitation of candidate views


>
>
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>> Dear prospective Board members:
>> On behalf of the 3 Names Council members from the
>> Non-commercial constituency who will vote in the ICANN DNSO Board
>> election in September, we solicit your answers to the following
questions.
>>
>> Please respond to discuss at icann-ncc.org
>
>Milton and all,
>
>I am really sorry for the delay in responding, as you know I was offline
>on holidays when you sent your mail, and only could
>answer it now. It is probably too late, but here are my answers anyway
>(whcih, for the largst part, are already known and
>predictable, in fact;-)))
>
>>
>>
>> ====
>>
>> 1. What do you think would be your most significant contribution to
>> the ICANN Board?
>>
>
>I think that my most significant contribution to the Board would be
>exactly the same as it has been during the past two years:
>never compromising on my principles and on the issues where I have
>interpreted to exist large community consesnus. I have that I
>have proven to be willing to devote a large amont of energy to this job,
>and that I don't easily shut up or accomodate, but I am
>always avilable for listening.
>
>>
>> 2. What is your most serious criticism of the performance of the
>> ICANN Board to date?
>
>Well, sitting there has been an uneasy experience. While everybody
>discusses about top deown/bottom up.... nothngs comes form the
>SOs, ie, form the Bottom. OTOH, the Board fails too often to provide
>adequate guidance to the staff as to the direction of ICANN
>issues... so finally it is the staff who really "makes the decisions"
>(even if formally approved by the Board). Working out a
>better equilibrium in this area has been, and will continue to be, my
>top priority in this area.
>
>>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
>I do believe that ICANN is a self-funding organization where all groups
>and part should make its best efforts to contribute to its
>funding. And that, where ruyles exist, they should be applied. This does
>not mean tha, as you say, NCDNHC should be deprived of
>its voting rights, but it does not amount either to "whatever it
>happens, nobody will ever be deprived of its voting rights". All
>consituencies should act responsibly in tryuing to fund DNSO
>actitivties. If this is the c<ase, I am sure that the NC will find
>some temporary or more definitive solutions. So first, ask for the
>effort to contribute. Then, if practically impossible, ask for
>cnsensus within the NC to waive or rduce funds. Incase the voting rights
>were supended, I owuld like the issue sent to the Board
>for immediate review.
>
>But nobody should pretend to have a free ticket to this train (and
>Iassume this is not NCDNHC position as well).
>
>>
>> 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 think that the "reality" is biased in favour of the omplainants, more
>than the UDRP iteself ;-)) TM protection is a common
>feature nearly everywhere, and TM holders, and complainants, tend to be
>wealthier and be able to sue better legal advise.....
>Besides that, I don't think that the UDRP is really "biased" in favour
>of complainants. The statistics of the resolutions usggest
>otherwise. It is out of doubt that some decisions reflect that some
>panelist  have a bisased interpretation of the rules, which i
>think is a different issue.
>
>I would not claim that UDRP is perfect, far from that. Nor that it does
>not need some redrafting, even in the sense of
>reequilibtrating some features thur the complainant. But quite frankly,
>UDRP is much more "balanced" than the TM laws that courts
>apply in Europe, regarding all these issues.
>
>As for concrete refrms, once again, I think that a Director should not
>express its views at this stage of the game, with a
>recently created UDRP reveiw task force within the NC just starting its
work.
>
>>
>> 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?
>
>"Favouring" is certainly not the espression I would use. I have
>expressed many time (last one in my answrs to GA Chair questions
>during this electoral process) that I see the DNSO structured around
>"functions" more than "interests", and that "individuals"as
>such do not fit easily under this conception. It is also a fact that I
>have opposed past temptatives to create such constituency
>that were not credible in any respect. Furthermore, it is not the
>Director's job to promote or favour a new SO or constituency.
>
>But I don't forntally oppose it. If there was a credible, self-organized
>proposal that recieved the support of the other
>constituncies, I would not oppos it.
>
>As for DNSO restructuration.... perhaps it is a bit early to express my
>views. I am trying to digest the ALSC and waiting for
>comments on some of its portions. Its disfunctionality is a fact (it is
>frustrating to sit in the Board and seeing "no"
>recommendations form the DNSO.....). But I am afraid that we still don't
>have a consensus on the solutions.
>
>>
>> 7. Do you favor the secession of the ccTLDS from the DNSO and
>> the creation of a separate country code SO?
>
>Again, I feel unconfortable with the notion of "favouring". No , I don't
>"favour" or "encourage" a ccTLD SO. But tbhis does not
>mean that I oppose it, The ccTLD mangers option represents on one hand,
>a failure of the DNSO, which I regret. OTOH, it is their
>preferred option for trying to solve a number of problems
>(disfunctionality of DNSO; unadequate representation of ccTLDs; ccTLD
>issues and specificites not suffiiciently taken into account....) that I
>respect and share for its most part. The SO it is not
>"my" favourite solution, and I have expressed some scepticism about its
>ability to really be the best way to solve all the
>problems it tries to address. But it is the undisputed and  unanimous
>(or neaqrly) option of the ccTLDs, and I should not, and
>would not, try to imoose my personal preferences on theirs. This means
>that I would support their proposal, indeed, under the
>ccondition (as I've explicitly told to gthem) that there is not
>widespread opposition to such new SO from other DNSO consituencies
>or SOs.
>
>>
>> 8.  Do you favor a public voice and representation on the board for the
>> community at large.  How would you define At Large?
>
>I favour part of the Board being elected by some at large mechanism,
>yes. The problem is that At large is not easily defined ;-))
>I think that keeping it to domain name holders is rahter reductive, even
>if this choice would undoubtly ease the electoral process
>to a great extent. Defining at large as all those individuals having an
>interest in ICANN-related activitites, and choosing to
>participate in its internal electoral and/or decision-making mechanisms
>sounds better.... but is far more difficult to
>operationalise.
>
>I do confess that I have read the ALSC draft report only once, and the
>NAIS one only partially. What is clear to me is that we
>need some AL concept and mechanism that helps "tying" AL to ICANN
>process for longer than the electoral process, ie, we need some
>AL SO, structure, council etc. But no, I don't have d, as a Director in
>charge right now, and if i was selected to serve again, my
>obligation is more to listen and follow community consensus (which i
>don't see yet) than trying to imose my own ideas (admittedly
>contradictory on this topic).
>
>>
>> 9.  Do you think board members should be elected by direct vote or
>> selected indirectly. Why?
>
>I contest the view that only direct elections are democratic. There are
>many perfeclytlegitimate political institutions where
>indirect vote perfects perfectly well. I favour inidrec vote for the
>SO-selected Direcdtors. as for At large, I opposed direct
>elections of 9 directors as direct elections are much more exposed to
>capture and "nationalistyic contests" than indirect ones,
>and 9, as i have often repeated, 9 is half the Board, with a de facto
>veto power and the right to apoint the CEO, thereby becoming
>a possible majority. So, in principle, i am not that fond of direct
>elections. But if this was for a smaller set of directors,
>like the 5 we elected last year or 6 as proposed by the the ALSC, I feel
>that we could, and should keep experimenting and refining
>a direct vote mechanism (but Ido insist: no, I don't see this as a top
>priority question).
>
>There is one iddue i would like to reiterate here (it is and old
>proposal, that i made during the old gTLD-MoU days and reiterated
>at the Singapore meeting). I am concerned about the "regional" division
>for AL elections. Not only because it tends to rapidly
>evolve into "national challenges" but also because it tends to favour
>the more developed (and Internet-developed) areas within
>each region.... that, for Internet matters, tend to have fairly
>equivalent views. I am not that concerned about having "European
>represnetation" or "African representation" as to have divesity of
>views. And it is a fact that thre Internet, seem form Ghana and
>Us, looks pretty different, and this is the diversity of veiws we need
>to ensure. But if the European seat(s)are always taken but
>EU-Switzerland-narway; the AP setas by Jaopan-Australia and so forth
>diversity is in fact fairly reduced. Cultural diversity is
>not the only factor: I) do insist, we do need peoplewhose daily
>experience comes form parts of the world where the Intenet is
>acceessed and used in a way that is differnt form those of the most
>developed countries. This is shy, regardless of which region
>they come from, I would like having at least one or two seats allocated
>to non-OECD residents/citizens (this could even be the
>"sixth region" proposed by ALSC).
>
>>
>> 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?
>
>Here it is a point where I have changed my position, and I don't mind to
>admit it publicly. When I first came to the Board, it
>realy sound strange to me that al mmetings had to be public (this is NOT
>the case in our , contenetal european, corporate and
>administrative tradition). But over the time I got convinced that ICANN
>would gain mora than it would loss if its teleconfs where
>also recorded and then made publicly available (the way Brett Fausett
>does for the NC). It is a fact of life that Directors will
>then find other channels to convey some of their questions or discuss
>some issues, but still I think that having all meetings
>where decisions are taken public desserves consideration (except for
>obviously reserved matters, like personnel, priviledged
>information about lawsuits or other legal issues, etc).
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss