ICANN Elections 66
ICANN's elections are now underway. (We've covered this before.) ICANN's Nominating Committee has picked several candidates for each of the five open seats in a closed primary process; now there is a "member nomination" process underway where several more candidates will be selected to run for each seat. Civil liberties groups are actively attempting to promote democratic involvement in ICANN, such as the Civil Society Democracy Project being spearheaded by CPSR. We've asked each of the people seeking to be candidates for the North American region board seat to answer one question; here are the responses we've received. Update: 08/17 14:04 by michael : Two more responses added.
This is equivalent to a "primary" election - it is selecting the people who will run for the election. We are concentrating only on the election for the North American region, since the majority of Slashdot's readership is from this region. ICANN's nominating committee picked four candidates to run for the seat:
- Lyman Chapin
- Donald Langenberg
- Lawrence Lessig
- Harris Miller
The Internet Democracy Project (www.internetdemocracyproject.org) and the Civil Society Internet Forum (www.civilsocietyinternetforum.org) have been involved in attempting to promote democracy and representation of individual Internet users at ICANN. The Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections -
http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/Statement_July-13.html
- is an attempt to spell out what attributes are desirable in ICANN from such a perspective.
Distinguishing between 50+ possible candidates, with only one endorsement to cast, is likely to be difficult for ICANN's registered voters. Slashdot has talked with Hans Klein of CPSR (www.cpsr.org) and we feel that a reasonable way to allow the candidates to distinguish between themselves is to ask them an open-ended question:
-- What is your response to the Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections?
What follows are the responses we received, edited only for HTML formatting. If you, as an ICANN registered voter, decide that you'd like to see one of these candidates run for the seat, you can endorse them on the ICANN Web site. Whichever three candidates receive the most endorsements (and are endorsed by more than 2% of the voter pool, and from at least two countries) will be on the ballot for the real election, which begins Sept. 1. You may change your endorsement before Sept. 1 by simply endorsing a different candidate. The candidate listing displays a running total of endorsements.
Clear enough? On to the candidates! These responses are listed in the order they were received.
Teri Powell
[Editor's note: Teri Powell informs me she has withdrawn from the ICANN election. --michael]
I have participated heavily and strongly re: ICANN issues on the Public Forums.
I have read and fully understand the position paper you reference. This has been evidenced in my opinions already expressed via any route I can. With this in mind, I have to admit the following: I can Not say it any better than as the Actual Statement linked below.
This will be short and sweet. I will reference (as a link) the Statement which I Totally Agree with.
http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/Statement_July-13.html
My web site can be found at:
http://www.brittany-technologies.com
The Prime Objective is to get Proper Representation onto the ICANN Board which Will Reflect ALL Internet Users.
My Very Best to the Other Candidates! I Believe the At Large Members Will Choose Wisely. I Will Support Whoever is chosen since this will, at least, be a Start in Representation for Us.
Liz Bartlett
My candidate page can be found at http://www.khyri.com/icann/ and contains the information on my ICANN page, together with expanded sections on my qualification, background and viewpoints. I intend to add relevent content and links to it at intervals, so feel free to bookmark and return.
1. I strongly believe that ICANN must represent all. I feel I can represent many interests, being female and having lived in England, France and (currently) the U.S.A. I am heavily involved in web accessibility issues, making sure that web content is available to everyone regardless of physical disability, method of accessing the Internet, or level of technology.
2. I have had indirect experience of organizations whose leadership have resisted such transparency, and I know that this mentality is a fast road to destruction. I have always held the view that information must be shared with all interested parties, unless there are very good reasons to withhold it.
3. One of the strongest bases for an organization such as ICANN is the strength of its core membership. I believe the board should be drawn from the membership, that the board should then exercise the proper oversight of the staff, and that the ICANN staff should not be employed from the ranks of board members in order to maintain a proper employee-employer relationship.
4. I believe that only in the clearest cases of intentional misleading or profit motivation should the "first come, first served" domain name policy be overturned.
5. I do not have strong views on the organizational split of IP address and DNS root server management. I feel this issues are best solved on a "what is technically best" basis.
6. I do not believe governmental control over domain name space can be a practical solution, given the global nature of the internet, the increasing abuse of the two-letter country codes, and the absence of a global government.
7. I am strongly against artifical scarcity of names. However, I am ambivalent on the decentralizing of some functions, as I realize that the independent operation of many registration/name lookup/routing functions can cause technical chaos. However I feel, (maybe naively) that it must be possible to retain a single, core central registry without giving any individual, organization or company the temptation of "abuse of power". I see no great problem with the current system.
8. Privacy policies as generally adopted by organizations that hold elections should apply to all ICANN operations.
9. The costs of participating in ICANN activities, and the costs that ICANN itself incurs in its operations should be kept as economically low as possible. Expenses should be looked at with a view to "does this further the ICANN objective" before approval.
Adam L. Beberg
I believe the first 3 values aim at something deeper which is that the membership base needs to be informed and educated about the issues they will vote on. Any issue that the members must decide needs to include the technical details, as well as a pro and con argument, all translated into multiple languages. The membership also needs to remain vigilant of the things happening in ICANN that have a public effect, and this can only be done with complete information.
One problem I have seen emerging due to ICANN's relatively few issues to deal with, but of high complexity and with extended impact, is that of "if I can get 50 non-technical friends to sign up, I can tell them all how to vote because they cannot understand the geekspeak". This is just as dangerous as the commercial makeup of the DNSOs, but far more insidious. Unfortunately this will probably be the operating mode for the At Large membership base.
Trademark laws as a social convention are an important thing if people are to know who they are dealing with, and that others with be prevented from pretending to be someone they are not. That said, I don't see how domain names or IP numbers affect free expression or privacy, other then the help privacy by limiting pretenders. Governments do not need ICANN's help to limit freedoms.
The scarcity of domains of any kind is completely artificial, and should be reduced or removed. Any TLD should be allowed, and is technically possible, but should be subject to some critical mass (N people want TLD .xyz) to avoid all domains turning into TLDs. Since other TLD's are not scarce, ccTLD's being a pain to get, if not scarce, doesn't seem to be a large problem. The ccTLD registrars must compete next to the generic registrars, and the market will eliminate the inefficient and unresponsive registrars. ICANN does need to take a role to insure that domain owners can easily change registrars, without hassle or loss/theft of their domains, which several registrars now prevent.
Emerson Tiller
I will address each of the guiding principles put forth by the Civil Society.
1. ICANN must be representative.
I agree. In fact, I propose that:
- the majority (not just 9), if not all, of the board members should be elected by the at-large membership.
- Email, fax, and regular mail member registrations should be accepted. Registration should be 1-step.
- ICANN members should enjoy the protections of being members under California's non-profit laws.
2. ICANN must be transparent.
Absolutely.
3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes.
I agree. I suggest that petition processes be allowed to bring issues up for a membership wide vote. The membership should also vote on whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) passed in 1999 should be reauthorized.
4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights.
Political, religious, anonymous, and other forms of free speech, as they reveal themselves in domain names or other web content, should be accorded equal standing with intellectual property rights.
5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics.
I agree. However, we should recognize the in an electronic age, technical decisions produce policy results, and thus in some sense the technical decisions are often policy decisions (much like decisions on process often determine the policy). Rather than ignoring this critical relationship, we would be better off to acknowledge the connection, and then be specific about which technology-driven policy areas ICANN should and should not involve itself. Any expansion of policy making should be authorized by both broad membership voting and broader international representation on the board.
6. The domain name space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions.
I agree. And the more we can open the TLD space, the more effectively these multiple uses can be met.
7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.
I believe that the expansion of the domain name space through the creation of new TLD registries should be one of ICANN's highest priorities. To the extent centralization occurs, or is necessary, it should be legitimized by broad public approval and international representation.
8. ICANN must respect privacy.
I agree. ICANN should avoid technical/policy decisions that compromise anonymity and the security of personal information.
9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.
And shared fairly among all countries, on condition that they have a fair chance at representation on the ICANN board and enjoy the services that ICANN performs.
Final Comments: ICANN is not beyond repair. There are a lot of good people who have worked to make it a forum that responds to the new demands of the Internet society. But ICANN is in need of restructuring, both in terms of process (election procedures, for example) and substance (the UDRP, for example). My platform: http://64.82.55.205/tiller.html.
Barbara Simons
I state on my election web page http://barbara.simons.org/:
I also signed the Civil Society Internet Forum Mission Statement in Yokohama. (See http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/csif/signatories.html)."I support the values enunciated by the Civil Society Internet Forum. These include 'democratic participation in decision-making, open processes, the right to communicate, and a fair balance between rights of privacy, speech, consumers, and property in Internet governance'. I shall work to defend privacy, speech, and the needs and rights of the smaller players; I sincerely hope that the other candidates will demonstrate their support for these important principles."
I am very pleased that you are asking this question of all the candidates. I hope that people will honestly state whether or not they will support the Civil Society principles. My support is public and long standing.
On my web page I also pledge to:
- be accessible and responsive to the members of the at-large community,
- create an advisory group of experts in technological, policy, economics, and the law,
- work to build a decision-making process that is open and inclusive.
- testified before a Senate subcommittee in favor of the legislation that would significantly reduce export controls on encryption,
- worked to defeat the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
- spoken out and written letters in opposition to UCITA,
- opposed attempts to censor the Internet,
- submitted a supporting declaration for the defense in the New York DVD trial (See http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/filings/NY/0503-reply.html#Simons),
- fought efforts to establish wide-spread monitoring by law enforcement of the Internet,
- worked to support privacy.
I hope that the readers of Slashdot will read my statement on the ICANN web page and the material I have posted on my web site. If anyone has comments or suggestions, he or she can reach me at simons@acm.org.
Karl Auerbach
I helped write it - I think its a darn fine statement. ;-)
(One can compare it to my rather long set of views as expressed on my election web page at http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/ )
ICANN as it is now constructed and operated seems to be premised on the notion that the Internet is there for the benefit of commercial interests and that ICANN ought to treat those who "merely" use the Internet as babes in the woods who can't be trusted to make decisions and who need paternalistic protection.
The Civil Society Statement is, to my mind, a roadmap of how ICANN can return to a more balanced state - so that the users of the Internet will be respected as people who can make their own decisions about their own interests.
Governance is hard. And ICANN is undertaking something new and difficult. ICANN cripples itself by creating a body of people who feel that they have been disenfranchised. The Civil Society Statement is a reminder to ICANN that it has forgotten to be inclusive of all those who believe they have role in these matters.
If you compare the Civil Society Statement with my own platform, you will see that I have gone rather further in certain areas - particularly with regard to procedures and ICANN structure. It is very much my belief that inclusive processes - even if they appear somewhat more chaotic than today's ICANN staff choreographed dictates - are at least as important as any substantive policy decision.
As a practical matter, whoever wins the election for a board seat is going to be but one person out of 19. So any single candidate's platform is probably not going to become fact, at least not immediately. ICANN's staff has become so entrenched and has taken control of the corporation so completely, that reform of ICANN is going to be a major effort. The Civil Society Statement serves as something we can always look to to see whether ICANN is improving.
Tom Lowenhaupt
Guiding Value 1. ICANN must be representative.
The ICANN needs to represent all of the Internet's current users - not just business interests.
But more than this, the ICANN needs to acknowledge the immense impact the Internet has on all people, and it needs to reserve representation space for those not yet on the net. When America was young it excluded women, workers, and African salves from its representation system. Let's learn from the 150 year struggle to remedy that stupidity. Let's set aside representation space now.
But representation on the ICANN is not a simple matter. How do you represent 5 billion people? I don't have all the answers to this question, but I began my search by asking the following. Who runs the military? Who sets water and air pollution standards? Who determines the direction and usage rules for our roadways? It's not the army or the air and highway bureaucrats. It's civil society - you and me. (Or at least it should be!)
Business might own the net, but it's you and me that pump in the cash that allows them to operate. Let's take control and make sure the net's something that's good for our families and good for our communities.
Guiding Value 2. ICANN must be transparent.
Guiding Value 3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes.
The ICANN's operation and its decision making process must be transparent and inviting to the public. Issues should be framed and brought to the public within a context and with comprehendible background information. Everyone should have the opportunity to comment on upcoming decisions using online forums, listservers, and polling systems.
Guiding Value 4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights.
Guiding Value 8. ICANN must respect privacy.
First and foremost the net should be about communication that empowers the individual. It shouldn't be turned into TV 2. When intellectual property rights are treated with undue importance, our access to information and our privacy rights are reduced.
Guiding Value 5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics.
Rapid growth and technologic change guarantees a tumultuous future for the net. Unsettling developments will be thrown into the ICANN's waiting lap on a regular basis. And human nature will have the organization's employees accreting power.
So I support an open governance system with separation of powers and independent review mechanisms.
Guiding Value 6. The domain name space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions.
Guiding Value 7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.
There needn't be any shortage in the domain name space. Look at Karl Auerbach's page for a discussion this. (Karl's also an At Large candidate, see his page at http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/).
An acknowledged expert in the field, Karl's proposed adding 10,000 new names - per year. He says the net should be able to support somewhere between 1,000,000 - 7,000,000 new TLDs.
IP numbers need to the distributed equitably, with set asides for future net users.
Guiding Value 9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.
I agree that we should keep costs to a minimum - who wouldn't? But good governance doesn't come cheep. If you want an open decision making process, you need qualified and well paid employees to create and present balanced presentations. You need good systems to keep the communication channels opened. And you need checks and balances to prevent centralization of power and undue influences by a moneyed class.
The money to pay for the net's operation is coming out of our pockets - ain' t no two ways about it. Let's invest our pennies in a governance system that empowers its users and respects their privacy.
I'll conclude by saying, "Vote for me and I'll do my best to see that the net works for us all."
Ted Phipps
The CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT ON ICANN ELECTIONS addresses 7 guiding values.
I will discuss each in turn.
1. Representation.
ICANN should mirror the people it represents. There needs to be a better balance between technical/non-technical capabilities. I've been involved with advanced IT aviation systems. However, it's my capabilities in understanding and handling international issues that ICANN is most short of.
2. Transparency.
We demand this from 'public for-profit' companies, why would we expect anything less from a 'non-profit?'
3. Bottom-up processes.
ICANN must be of the members, by the members and for the members. Directors must be diligent in protecting your interests. If they don't, then not only should they be removed; but 'you' have an obligation to remove them. This is your global village, not theirs!
4. Intellectual property rights.
Throughout history, property issues have been at the forefront of any new frontier. Interestingly, this virtual property issue was dealt with in 1776. It's roots evolved out of Englishman John Locke's Treatise on Civil Government. Locke identified three rights: life, liberty and property. Jefferson took property a step further. He replaced the word property with "the right to pursuit of happiness." Jefferson wanted to make certain that the rights were not limited to land. In effect, Jefferson made a momentous step toward recognizing virtual rights. James Madison cemented the concept when he said we must "equally respect the rights of property and the property in rights." [Madison went on to list some virtual property examples in a 1792 essay].
For speculators, there are rights in property. For the trademark holder there's property in rights. ICANN must balance these rights. Fortunately, there is a solution- release more gTLD's under different classifications.
5. Policy-making.
The 'White Paper' identifies 4 guiding principles: stability, competition, bottom-up coordination and representation. The directors should follow this course.
6. Domain-space.
I agree that, multiple, parallel and overlapping TLDs registries for various stakeholders should not be excluded from the root. This is not only the basis of a vibrant society, but an empowered one.
7. Artificial scarcity and centralization.
We don't need a DeBeers of the Internet. Holding gTLD's back is like building trade barriers - no one wins! Releasing new gTLDs is good for trademark holders, good for ebusiness, and good for the global village as a whole.
8. Privacy.
Information must flow freely across borders. This goes without saying for private users. For commercial users, ICANN's policies and procedures should adhere to Fair Information Practices. A good starting point is the OECD Privacy Guidelines. This policy actually makes life easier since companies' wouldn't have to guess whether they're violating a 'human rights' law.
9. Costs.
ICANN's operations should be transparent. If fees are charged they should be limited to commercial users. I polled the board members of ColorMeHome.com. They agree, as I believe most companies do: that it is better for businesses to contribute, than limit any individuals' access.
Eric Grimm
Thank you for this chance to introduce myself and my candidacy to /. In response to your question, the Civil Society Statement reinforces and corroborates my opinion that the ICANN at-large elections, while certainly a welcome development, still are too little, too late. They only represent the first step toward reintroducing ideals of open and equitable decision-making -- including broad-based and fair representation of all interests, transparency, democracy, and freedom - into Internet governance generally and ICANN in particular.
I fully support the ideals of transparency, freedom and democracy not only in this context, but in other trans-national contexts, such as trade regulation, which should serve the long-term interests of the world's population as a whole, including future generations, and not the narrow interests of a tiny minority residing principally in industrial countries.
Following the ICANN vote, representatives of corporate power still will command super-majorities both on the ICANN Board and on every ICANN subcommittee. Therefore, the first at-large representatives will have to shoulder tremendous responsibility to keep things moving in the right direction. The costs of the status quo are already too evident. For example, the dispute resolution process that ICANN has established *COULD* have been designed to be fair and to promote impartiality, and should have included the following simple and obvious safeguards of fairness:
- Respondents should have the right to exercise a peremptory "strike" against the complainant's initial choice of forum. At present, the multiple Fora (WIPO, NAF) have every economic incentive to cater solely to the interests of trademark complainants, because they realize that complainants alone have the choice as to where the arbitration business will go. Respondents, at present, have no choice whatsoever in the process. Complainants naturally will select among fora based on their perception that, with respect to the issues in their particular case, one forum or another happens to be the most biased and unfair in complainants' favor. I have even had counsel for complainants admit this to me directly in particular cases that I have defended.
- Both complainants and respondents should have the right to exercise a limited number of peremptory "strikes" against individual arbitrators, whose track record demonstrates that they disregard the law and clearly fail to measure up to the standard of objectivity and impartiality. Yet, the people in control of ICANN omitted this important and obvious procedural safeguard.
- Complainants should be required, as a condition of invoking the ICANN dispute resolution process, to post a monetary bond, in case the complaint turns out to represent a bad-faith effort to engage in extortion, theft, and "reverse domain name piracy." Defending such a case is expensive, and the process was intended only to be invoked in "clear-cut" cases. In cases where the complainant has initiated arbitration in bad faith or for extortionate purposes, the arbitral panel should have broad discretion to compensate the respondent for the financial burden of defending a frivolous case.
- Each of the arbitration providers - like judges and courts in most forward-thinking jurisdictions - should be forbidden from commenting outside the arbitral process (i.e., to the press) on the merits of pending cases. They certainly should be prohibited from issuing press releases for the evident purpose of trying to drum up more business from new complainants by obliquely promising to "evict" respondents as often as can be managed. Specific press releases issued by more than one of the current arbitration service providers create a clear appearance of impropriety, and arguably constitute conclusive evidence of actual impropriety.
- The process should have a more robust mechanism for appeal from, and correction of, erroneous decisions. Also necessary is a mechanism for removing individual arbitrators who demonstrate a persistent inability to apply the rules fairly, and as those rules were written and intended to be applied. Even the most cursory examination of the output of the two most popular tribunals shows that their decisions are all over the map. Most decisions are mutually irreconcilable with one another. The ICANN process, as it is currently working, more resembles a random "domain name lottery" than a legitimate and balanced effort to administer fair rules in a consistent manner.
This is not to say that I believe that commerce is "bad," or that I am opposed to trademark law, or that I have any desire to banish commerce from the Internet. Quite the contrary, I strongly favor the application of TRADITIONAL principles of trademark law, within appropriate contexts. I firmly oppose the unnecessary EXPANSION of IP rights, however, and will fight to roll back the special rights that trademark owners have demanded. I also strongly favor commerce on the Internet -- both by small business as well as by big business. However, commerce is not entitled to a special place among the pantheon of Internet constituencies, and should assume its proper place among all constituencies of the Internet community as a whole.
In short, after reviewing the Civil Society Statement, I wholeheartedly agree with it and promise, if elected, to uphold every single principle listed in the document. I also pledge to work continuously to ensure that the process of democratization and open governance continues to move forward, rather than stagnating or moving in counterproductive directions.
A short biography is probably in order. I am an attorney who specializes in Internet law (including privacy, First Amendment, trademark, encryption, online commerce, and other issues). I represent clients from many different countries, with multiple perspectives on many of these issues (but never any clients in whose causes I do not believe). I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and practice in courtrooms all over the United States. I have experience working for the United States government, as well as for a state Supreme Court, for a large law firm that represents multinational corporations, and for a federal trial court judge. At present, however, I work in a small firm setting by choice principally because of the autonomy it gives me to choose to take positions because I believe in them, and not because a large client representation requires me to subordinate my principles to "the firm's" financial interests.
I have both the time and desire to contribute constructively to improving ICANN and Internet governance, and I thank all of you who choose to give me the opportunity to serve your interests as your ICANN at-large representative.
John Alexander
At the outset, I should note that I strongly support the efforts of the CPSR, and the Internet Democracy Project, to keep our civil rights in the forefront at this formative stage of international internet governance. Bodies such as ICANN have a natural tendency to be driven by the most substantive financial interests in a controversy more strongly than by such notions as free speech and diversity.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Yokohama Statement's preamble. Indeed, ICANN must consider how its actions impact the global exercise of free speech and association, as well as the ability of those in the minority to take their places at the internet table.
In fact, this notion not only describes my own deeply-held beliefs, but also my very rationale for volunteering my most valuable asset - time and expertise - to the task of internet domain governance.
My online ICANN candidate statement and web page - http://www.netgaincc.com/icann - give more detail on my professional background and training. I have a great deal of experience as a journalist, attorney and, for the past four years, web designer. Throughout, I have donated my time to the assistance and representation of those whose civil rights have been threatened - in the arenas of federal and state court, and the internet. My company, Net Gain Communications Consultants, designed and hosted the website for a leading affirmative action organization founded by Martin Luther King III, as one example.
Most of the nine issues articulated in the Yokohama Statement describe values over which I suspect there may little debate, if just as little current compliance, by ICANN.
For example, ICANN President Mike Roberts likely would not argue with the second proposition, that ICANN must operate transparent to public scrutiny. Yet the group is woefully deficient in communicating the substance of ongoing issues and proposed resolutions to the impacted internet public with sufficient time to secure meaningful response from all factions.
That is why the first "plank" of my "platform" is Communication: I pledge a commitment of my own time and expertise to ensuring ICANN communicates in a more complete and timely fashion, using with some degree of sophistication the very technology it seeks to regulate. I feel well suited to do this, given my background in journalism, law and the web.
I cannot claim complete consonance with the Yokohama Statement, however. Some of the language is so vague as to be nothing more than the start of a conversation about the topic, while other particulars are simply off-course. For example, within principal number five, the proposition regarding separation of IP address and DNS root server management would simply complicate an otherwise complex process with more bureaucracy serving no reasonable purpose. The stated goal of "decentralizing authority" really does not articulate a valid reason for this move.
While I could take issue with several specifics of this sort, I think what is important is that I generally support the goals of the Yokohama Statement, and of the CPSR. If elected an at-large director, I will listen carefully to the CPSR's views on all issues before ICANN.
Robin Bandy
While I certainly think that the CPSR Statement points in the correct direction, I also think that it ignores a few fundamental issues and, on the important issues it does address, it does not go far enough. The focus of most of the Statement can be grouped under the broad heading of "Democratic Representation", and as such they miss a few important considerations.
First and most important, is that ICANN (as a company incorporated under American, and Californian, law) cannot actually be representative of a global usership. ICANN's freedom to structure itself is proscribed by American and Californian laws governing the organization and operation of non-profit corporations and its actual existence is dependant upon the sufferance of these two governments, either of which could revoke its corporate existence at will. An organization so dependant on one country cannot, and should not be expected to, represent the users from or residing in other countries. By ICANN's control of the default DNS root it also illegitimately extends the jurisdiction of American and Californian law to governing interactions between Americans in other states and between citizens or residents of other countries.
While transparency and openness are obvious necessities of a democratic structure, CPSR also does not extend their call for a more democratic ICANN to including procedures for member initiative and referendum nor for member initiated recall of elected Board members, all features of any truly democratic system.
Additionally, a truly democratic ICANN should have no representation of government or corporate interests. Governments and corporations are already representative organizations, the first represent their citizens and the second represent their owners; these interests are already represented by the voting members who are also constituents of governments and corporations. To allow the U.S. government, for example, a representative in ICANN is to multiply the votes of the U.S. ICANN members by giving them two Board members (one shared with Canada and one of their own) while devaluing the votes of all non-American members. To allow NSI or CORE, to take another example, representation is to grant the owners of the corporation, as individuals, vastly greater influence than all other individual members. These are clearly not democratic scenarios, as they are basically the same as if R.J. Reynolds or any other special-interest lobbying group were given a direct seat in the U.S. Congress, but they are the essence of how ICANN now functions.
That CPSR calls for opening the current monolithic DNS root to a collaborative root shared between the ICANN and alternative namespaces is marvelous. In my capacity as a root server maintainer with the OpenNIC, I have been involved in discussing exactly that with several of the existing alternates and obviously am fully in support of that scenario. Though we have already begun discussions with several Linux and BSD distributions about the possibility of their installers supporting the alternative roots, we would obviously much prefer that the current root also support them.
That they also call for an end to the artificial domain name scarcity is also good, but I think they don't consider exactly how it needs to be managed. Simply adding new generic Top-Level Domains (TLDs) would not help solve another of their concerns, that of the over-focus on "Intellectual Property" (i.e. trademark) concerns. By implementing new TLDs with well defined charters, such as the .parody TLD served by OpenNIC, the trademark concerns can be properly confined to appropriately chartered TLDs, leaving space available for parody, criticism and personal sites which would be free from the current ever- present threat of trademark lawsuits. By chartering a geographic series of TLDs, trademark concerns could also be confined to their appropriate geographical regions rather than, as the current system does, allowing conflicts between properly registered trademarks in various countries and regions.
Since Slashdot asked us to keep these down to around 500 words, and I've already gone over that, here are a few additional informational links:
- My Candidacy page
- The OpenNIC, an alternative namespace which, I think, provides a good model
Sondlo Leonard Mhlaba
Response to Civil Society Statement on ICANN Elections
by Sondlo Leonard Mhlaba, PhD
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Civil Society Statement of July 13, 2000.
I have followed the work of CPSR for several years and, more recently, have benefited from the work of the Democracy Project. It should, therefore, come as no surprise to many that I support the nine Guiding Values of the Civil Society Statement. I do have some reservations about some details in Values 1, 7, and 8.
Value #1: Representativeness. The basis of my questions and my perspective on this item can best be appreciated through the mission of The New Franchise Institute at http://www.NewFranchise.Org which I am currently building . I see development of the internet as a momentous event in the history of the world. In 500 Years of Eurocentric Diplomacy: Prospects for the 21st Century (1999), I dared to suggest that the internet may become as integral to human life as the heavy coat is to the polar bear. Looked at in this light, the internet has the potential to separate "internet haves" from the "internet have-nots" so far apart as to constitute separate species. I am a naturalized American citizen and Zimbabwe native, having come to the US in the mid-60s. From where I sit, therefore, the work of ICANN and all the parties to internet development, is epoch-making.
In light of the above perspective, I believe that, at some point, ICANN needs to re-examine how the world is divided for purposes of representation. Should, for example, representatives be assigned in proportion to the at-large members, or in proportion to the population of the region (irrespective of the level of internet participation)? Readers may know that of the 58,000 at-large registrants for the purposes of this up-coming election, only 1,000 came from the Continent of Africa. How should language and the attendant worldview be factored in? A year ago, according to a study cited in my book, about 58% of internet communication was in English and 83% was in European languages. In the long term, I believe that a Eurocentric, and North-American dominated internet is not in our (North America's) political, civic, or economic interest. The North American representative must provide a more globalist, and future-oriented perspective, as he or she endevors to be responsive to his or her North American internet constituency.
Value #7. I believe that some domain name categories ought to be reserved for civic and governmental entities, while other categories are left to the market. Cyber-squatting and the after-market ought to be disallowed in the governmental and civic categories. However, I believe that cyber-squatting and related market techniques should be allowed in the market category. In order for this distinction to work in the interest of the general public, a great deal of care would, of course, need to go into defining the two categories.
Value #8: I support respect for privacy, but I also realize that there are differences among cultures as to what level of privacy is necessary or adequate. I believe that some of the OECD prescriptions, if they become a world standard, could dampen critical debate in the civic arena and complicate normal international market activity.
My major problem with Value # 8 is in the area of member voting. I strongly believe that ICANN board member voting must be open, and not through secret ballot. I think at-large members must be able to hold board members accountable for their votes, and a secret ballot process is inimical to the concept of transparency (Value # 2).
Marty Freeman
As far as the Cival Society sataement, I agree completly. I think they sould have included some links or examples, however, to information sugsting that ICANN is not working in the manner it should. www.WIPO.org.uk (World Intelectual Piracy Orginization) has some more info. and examples.
Reading the statement did help me realize the depth of the problem though. The internet is so interseting and usefull because of the content provided by its users. If it becomes too dificult for someone to set up a server and give it an easy to find address, then the internet will loose the very thing everyone loves it for -- ridiculous ammounts of usefull, useless, interesting and funny information. It will become a homogonized channel for the distribution of U.S. corporate propaganda. That sucks. I don't want surfing the internet to be like watching TV. I am really glad to have a chance to change things and hope for at least a chance to be on the final ballot. I would like to note that the ICANN has put the 158,000 people who actually managed to sign up in a tight position. They have only two weeks to decide among the candidates for their area. Plus, the first few people to gain enough support in a area are the only ones to make it. That seams sort of unfair. On one hand you have to study info on 50 people and decide who is best for the job, on the other, you have to decide quickly which candidate to vote for, or all the slots may already be full. This is one of the first things I would change. It makes more sense for the top supported few to make it than the first few to get 2% of the total support. Anyway, thanks for giving me a chance to voice my oppenion. I hope you will all make an informed and responsible decision.
Chris Stewart
The Civil Society's "Statement On ICANN Elections" addresses a number of issues that are quite popular amongst candidates seeking member-nomination. The paper focuses on a need for transparency, proportionate representation, fundamental rights, and the "bottom-up" process of administration. However, I am extremely disappointed that, once again consumer rights issues are not mentioned in the context of purchasing, owning, selling, or the security of a domain name.
As well, the paper does not address the need for ICANN to review its accreditation process, or the continued technical and administrative negligence of registrars. It is also disconcerting to conclude that the Civil Society opposes the current practice of selling, renting, or leasing a domain name in excess of its original registration cost incurred by the registrant. The following point taken from the paper's "Guiding Values" supports this conclusion,
The Civil Society also argues that a "scarcity in domain names creates opportunities for control". However, the solution to this "artificial" scarcity should not be, as suggested by the paper, an unconstrained expansion of the Internet domain name space.Section 7. Artificial Scarcity and Centralization Should Be Avoided
"The use of domain names as a marketing device to index content creates excessive value in domain names and creates disincentives to innovation."
It can be agreed that a greater number of new gTLDs would benefit consumers by potentially reducing registration costs and allowing an increased selection of domains and registrars. However, it is irresponsible to ignore the incidents of technical and administrative negligence that currently hounds registrars and the domain registration/ownership process. These are the issues that need to be addressed prior to any consideration of an "unconstrained" expansion. I refer to two examples of registrar negligence and the lack of accountability on their behalf in the following two articles.
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,32974,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2615087,00.html
Consumers want a system that will allow them to purchase a domain, maintain its security via an accredited registrar, use the domain in any context they wish without restrictions that impede upon their civil liberties, and the right to profit from the use or sale of that domain. This paper does not address these fundamental concerns with any conviction.
The Civil Society does however appeal to the interests of the Internet community in many aspects of the statement. The need for proportionate representation rather than "democracy deficit", and the minimization or avoidance of ICANN policy-making on non-technical topics are extremely favourable arguments. The latter of the two directly refers to policies such as the UDRP, which has attempted to handcuff the abuse of trademark infringement in the domain registration environment.
However, the paper does not comment on the use of the arbitration system (such as the WIPO) in order to settle disputes. This system has been fraught with negative response from domain name owners and the media alike. The absence of support for or against this system of dispute resolution is unsettling. Decisions from this arbitration panel have been inconsistent, extremely unfair, and unjust in many of the cases, suggesting that the scope of the UDRP has been abused and sometimes ignored altogether. I offer the following site, which addresses some of the specific cases. http://www.domainshame.com/
To view the issues I feel need to be addressed in this election, please visit http://www.iknowicann.com
Sincerely, Christopher Stewart
Lee Fulmer
I fully endorse and support the intent of the Civil Society's statement on the ICANN elections.
It seems that since its inception, the internet has been driven by government and corporate interests. I think that ICANN needs to be fully transparent in its operation and accountable to the entire internet community. One of the most important tasks ICANN faces is to deal with the current problems of "scarcity" of domain space by clamping down on speculators and creating new gTLDs. It is equally important the ICANN is representative of the internet community and should include equal representation from all regions as well as from all interest groups (business, government, academia and individuals).
As an individual who has lived and worked in North America, Europe and Australasia across all the interest groups, I feel I have a unique perspective I can contribute to the process. The domain space should be more distributed among the registrars to help keep costs (including ICANN's) down. I certainly don't expect to paid for my work and I would strive to ensure that a balance between public, private, and personal interests is taken.
Please read my candidacy statement on the ICANN site at http://members.icann.org/nom/cp/47.html and visit my site at http://www.fulmer.com/ before you case your vote!
Patrick D'Acre
The issues raised by the Internet Democracy white paper have significant merit. As such, they would need to be included in a larger conversation, involving activated participants, with the intention of finding the middle ground. The 'revisionist' approach to providing a 'FREE Internet' for every person, hints at some policies of the past (e.g. Commerce Secretary Hoover in the 20's).
For the Internet to progress, and be made available to the largest population, business practices are mandatory. And attempt to revert to the origins of the Internet would be woefully out of place and inadvertantly restrict access to the most deserving.
I can appreaciate some of the points in the white paper, yet look for more 'centrist' approaches to implementing those same objectives.
For information on my interests see http://www.letsdobizradio.bizland.com/personal/resume.htm.
Laurie Williams
1. ICANN must be representative--Agree. Further, consideration should be given to not only developing countries, but also to developing areas within developed countries. For example, interests of those in rural Oklahoma, North Dakota, or in the furthest reaches of Canada, may be more aligned with those of a remote island or developing country, than with the metropolitan areas of the USA or Canada.
2. ICANN must be transparent--Agree.
3. ICANN must use bottom-up process--Agree
4. Intellectual property rights should not be privileged over other rights--ICANN should foster collaboration and cooperation instead of creating antagonism and divisiveness. Domains are not synonymous with trademarks--otherwise the system would have been called the TNS (Trademark Name Service) and not the DNS (Domain Name Service).
5. ICANN should strive at all times to minimize or avoid policy-making on non-technical topics--Agree.
6. The domain space is a globally-shared public good with public and private functions--Agree.
7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided--Agree, with the caveat that the technical efficacy of the internet should be guaranteed before expansion and diffusion is promoted. Further, registrars should continue to enhance their processes to streamline the needs of clients. In addition, registrars, portals, and search engines should expand to include more effective searches for domain names.
8. ICANN must respect privacy--Agree.
9. Costs should be minimal and equitable--Agree. In addition, the Berkman Center does an excellent job in providing remote participation of ICANN meetings. Emphasis should be placed on enhanced technology to make ICANN webcasts even better in the future so that individuals without the resources of large companies, can participate more effectively.
-->
-->
-->
-->
Please Endorse Someone (Score:1)
Re:Golly! (Score:1)
An elected committee is going to spend most of its time bickering, whining, and doing nasty things behind each other's backs. So, no matter WHO gets elected, they may accomplish something once every 5 years or so.
Re:STATUS of nominations (Score:1)
> (the strongest candidate at the moment)
> and hope to change my vote to bolster
> someone else when he hopefully qualifies
> for the final ballot.
Huh?
If by strongest candidate you mean the one with the most votes, then yeah, he's got the most votes so far.
How did that happen? A couple of months ago he created a site called ICANNVote.org, which looked like a public service site. At least that's what people who signed up for his "Get information about the upcoming ICANN vote" mailing list thought. Turns out the site was not so much a public service as a way for "Dr. Tiller" to grab e-mail addresses of potential voters for his upcoming election bid. He's now spamming the people duped into signing up on his 'public service site' with "Get out the vote!" rhetoric signed by the "Chairman of ICANNVote.org -- Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D."
Yeah, if you like calculating politicians, endorse Tiller. I've had enough of those games though in the off-line world.
can't really say I like any of them that much... (Score:2)
...although, that being said, Dr. Mhlaba and Mr. Beberg seem to have their heads screwed on pretty well.
Dr. Mhlaba might be my first choice, although I am still unsure of how well he would represent North America as a whole. While I largely agree with his views, I suspect most North Americans share little of his concern regarding the rampant Eurocentrism prevalent in global organizations like ICANN.
My other choice would be Mr. Beberg. I appreciated the terseness and honesty of his reply, and I feel that he has what I would call, for lack of a better term, a level of "healthy cynicism" that would be necessary to be an effective representative. Most of the rest of the candidates struck me as excessively naive or manipulative. I think Adam is running for the right reasons, even if I am not that comfortable with his apparently Objectivist (Randrite) personal philosophy.
Re:Please Endorse Someone (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot's demographics (Score:1)
-Waldo
-------------------
STATUS of nominations (Score:1)
As of shortly before 1630 CDT, here are the candidates with at least 5 nominations assuming I didn't accidentally cut one out:
Karl Auerbach - 66 endorsement(s) received
Robin Bandy - 9 endorsement(s) received
Liz Bartlett - 5 endorsement(s) received
Eric Lee - 7 endorsement(s) received
Nick Nicholas - 5 endorsement(s) received
Barbara Simons - 44 endorsement(s) received
Christopher Stewart - 15 endorsement(s) received
Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - 79 endorsement(s) received
HOW TO NOMITATE
Go to the members only [icann.org] page and type in your number, password and PIN (remeembecr to include PIN- at the start). There's a new line item that wasn't there last time I looked: Endorse a candidate
REMEMBER: if nobody makes the 2% threshhold (and 2 or more countries, which makes it quite important for people from Canada, et al. to nominate too), we don't get ANY of our choices (not good at all)! The minimum number of nominations required to qualify will probably be in the neighborhood of 500 AT LEAST. I believe we can change our nomination later on, so I personally voted for Dr Tiller (the strongest candidate at the moment) and hope to change my vote to bolster someone else when he hopefully qualifies for the final ballot.
So does anyone have information on the other 4 seats we get to nominate people for? or would those best get articles of their own to keep things streamlined (This one for the Americas, et c.?
Totals as of a little after 1700 CDT:
Karl Auerbach - 68 endorsement(s) received
Robin Bandy - 9 endorsement(s) received
Liz Bartlett - 5 endorsement(s) received
Eric Lee - 7 endorsement(s) received
Nick Nicholas - 5 endorsement(s) received
Barbara Simons - 45 endorsement(s) received
Christopher Stewart - 15 endorsement(s) received
Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - 80 endorsement(s) received
Re:STATUS of nominations (Score:1)
You may have a bit of a point here. The next two strongest candidates are the other two who seem to be having the most support here. If you have dirt on them too please feel free to share it. 8)
Anyone? Who on this list should we NOT be nominating and why?
Situation in Europe (Score:1)
My favourite, though, is crypto- and usenet activist Lutz Donnerhacke [iks-jena.de], who is CCC-related as well.
Re:Golly! (Score:2)
Re:Getting on ICANN@Large, and what it can mean (Score:2)
And even then, if you recall, ICANN reported that they would be up to 3 months backlogged -- on the first batch.
It took 2 months to get my member ID and password, and then 3 more months to get my PIN.
I pride myself with having realized the significance of being on the ALM early on, while others were taking a pessimistic "wait and see" approach. Well they aren't seeing much. Friends of mine with ties to the alternate-DNS community are jealous.
I fault ICANN for not putting more resources into the registration mechanisms. It would be inexcusable in any other arena for the process to be so overloaded for this long. Obviously there are strong forces in ICANN right now which are diverting resources away from the ALM registration engines. Which is why ANY, and ALL, inroads we can make into ICANN and the Board -- including the ALM board seats -- are very important, regardless of the impact they may have in the short term.
Many politically structured organizations attempt the "appeasement" theory; that by giving us certain concessions, they can then continue to gum up the works for further concessions, and fend off massive grievances. Giving the @Large membership some input into the board selection process is such an appeasement tactic. Luckily, the former result does not happen often, and even small inroads can conceivably lead to more inroads.
It is also important that ALL forces working on those inroads continue to put on their pressure, and not get diluted. This includes ICANNVote. Thinning out the pool of pressures on ICANN will not help this process -- we need more people, each playing a part in putting different pressures on ICANN. Not less people, each futilely trying to take on more roles. Personally, I'm worried that this could happen with the NA seat.
--
Re:Request that ICANN re-open the membership drive (Score:2)
No, not at the moment. Let's focus for a little bit. We have the opportunity to potentially put a truly representative person ON THE BOARD -- namely one of the member-nominated candidates. Let's do that NOW while we have the chance and then spend the time AFTER the election to worry about building up the at large membership. In fact, having that person on the board will put just a little more pressure on ICANN to fix the currently jammed registration process.
Obviously, this is a case of a minority making decisions for the entire community, something which history has almost always proved a Very Bad Idea.
You mean like the US Senate? Please reread your history.
--
Re:Slashdot's demographics (Score:1)
SWAG.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Recommend Simons and Auerbach (Score:2)
Re:serious (Score:1)
Same here! Are they going to have other registration periods? I hope I can get registered before the next election.
149 endorsements needed!!! (Score:2)
Re:149 endorsements needed!!! [addendum] (Score:2)
Re:Karl Auerbach and TLDs (Score:1)
$ wc
45402 45402 409048
so, with 49402 words in English alone...
45402 * 46656 = 2118275712 total domain names using one English word as the domain and one three letter gTLD.
Even if(as you point out) all three-letter gTLDs are not desirable, that's still well over a billion of the simplest addresses. Add in company names, foreign words, ccTLDs, etc, and it seems to me like there's more than enough domain names to go around(at least for several decades, anyway).
The distributed nature of DNS makes some sort of hierarchial system necessary(assuming you want to keep DNS), but the problem with the current system is not so much a fault of the system itself but a fault with its users. As soon as domain names because "valuable" and subject to IP laws and such, some sort of collapse was almost guaranteed. Better to add a few TLDs and enforce the current system better: absolute first come first served except in cases of crystal clear abuse, no cross-TLD registration, and a limited number of domains per commercial organization.
Re:Golly! (Score:2)
Lets us all go over to eviloverlord.org and ask similar questions over there. The answers might come back pandering to the Maelevolent Evil Overlord herself
Then lets fake an email from the CEO of NSI, and see if most of the at-large candidates re-spin their tune to be in line with what NSI wants to do.
But don't worry. The way the ICANN elections are rigged, the Malevolent Evil Overlord's current position is ensured. These pesky rebels are no match for power of the empire.
the AC
Re:serious (Score:2)
Maybe if someone over at ICANN read Slashdot they would have been ready for the Slashdot effect that they got and actually more people register..
ICANN at Large? (Score:1)
So who cares? (Score:2)
It's good that
I really don't think that there will be enough response to this, even from the geek crowd, yet sooooo many people use the net that its not even funny.
Voting Without Elections and Campaigns (Score:2)
Meet the Candidates
Background information to the nominees named by ICANN's top-down Nominations Committee
I almost vomited. Here's why:
The internet makes elections unnecessary let alone the thinly veiled insolence of top-down nominations committees. Why not let anyone anonymously list their nominations -- as many as they like, changing their lists whenever they like and then make the N "candidates" with the most nominations at the time of a vote be the ones who cast the votes? (Where N is the number of voting seats.)
Or, better yet, here is something I wrote up in 1982 [geocities.com]:
As a tool for coordinating organizations, a customer-driven videotex communications facility would be just as revolutionary in its impact. In particular, organizations with simple hierarchical structures could automate almost all of their accounting and coordination via a videotex network. In addition to the normal modes of organizational management, new modes will spring up that are impractical outside of an information utility. Perhaps the most important example involves the way individuals are given authority within organizations. Traditional organizations select authority via a top-down, authoritarian system or via a bottom-up democratic system. The authoritarian system is more efficient than the democratic system, but it is also more vulnerable to mistakes and corruption. The democratic system gets harder to maintain the larger it gets. People have a natural limit to the number of people they can effectively associate with. In large representative democracies, such as our government, a national union, etc. virtually no one voting for a candidate knows the candidate personally. This, combined with the event called "election" creates the "campaign" where the virtues of democracy are almost entirely subverted by its vices. A very simple system of selecting representation or proxy exists which eliminates "elections" and thus campaigns, excessive politics and corruption. It is called CAV: "continuous approval voting". It is too expensive to maintain manually, but with a videotex network, it becomes just as cheap as any other system (it may be less expensive).
In CAV, a group of people who associate with each other select a representative from among themselves. Each member has an "approval list" which only they can see and alter. On this list, they give the name of every individual they feel is competent to be their representative. The person whose name appears on the most approval lists is the representative. At any time, a member may change their approval list. That change could put another at the top of the approval heap and therefore force a recall of the previous representative. A hierarchy of such groups could grow to unlimited size, still with no campaigns and everyone evaluating only those who they are in a position to associate with. Of course, thresholds for recall, terms of office and other embellishments may be included to optimize the system for particular purposes. The point is that this represents just one of many new forms of democracy that could change the way privilege and accountability are allocated in our institutions.
Karl Auerbach and TLDs (Score:3)
I read much of the website of Karl Auerbach, and I have to say that if I had a vote I would vote for him in all likelyhood.
That said, on his site he proposes the creation of an unlimited number of TLDs, starting at a rate of 1000 per year and working up to 10,000 per year, assigned by lottery to those applying, on a first-come, first-choice basis.
Possibly not a bad idea, I have long thought the dominance of .com was a bit silly myself, certainly opening up the creation of new TLDs might eliminate some problems we currently face, notably the problem of the ever-decreasing availibility of useful domain names, and probably cause other problems of course. I think we need to resolve the whole "corporate/trademark/commercial interest is more important than public rights" issue first, or every corporation out there will be lobbying against this will all their might (ie cash) because they will end up having to purchase their company domain in every new TLD to prevent competitors from doing so.
However (finally he gets to the point) I have take exception to Mr Auerbach's math. On his website he figures the maximum cap on number of TLDs to be somewhere around a couple of million. Currently a TLD consists of 3 letters (I am ignoring the 2 letter country codes completely for the sake of this arguement, since adding any more 2 letter codes would simply increase the confusion.), using an english-language standard keyboard there are 26 letters total. If we do the simple math (26*26*26) there are only 17,576 possible combinations. Once we rule out the undesirable ones (who wants the TLD of .qbb, .zzj, or .ggg?), the practical list is considerably smaller. Even if you add in the digits from 0-9 we only get a few thousand more possibilities (46656).
Thus the only possible assumption is there is to be no 3 letter cap on TLD length. If we go to a maximum of 4 letters, we get a total possible combination of 456,976 which is closer to his suggested range, but again, 95% of these are going to be undesirable (although it does let us use more realistic, and more descriptive choices for TLDs. I am sure .slut, .free, and .porn would go pretty quickly).
My question is, has anyone come up with a better notion for domain addressing that is not so inherently limiting? Something that could practically be created to replace the relatively silly system we have now?
I'll be writing in .. (Score:1)
For all the non US slashdotters (Score:1)
An extra call to all Aussies, we are in the same region as China and they are getting too far a head!!! [no disrespect to any Chineese
If I get in I will listen to everyone.
cya, Andrew...
Can I be a candidate? (Score:2)
DNS should return to what it was meant to be: a way to remember how to find something on the web.
Let's look at apple.com for example. Who should have control of that website? Well, who uses the trademark of Apple? There is Apple Computers, of course. But also Apple Music, and let's pretend Apple Plumbing.
So who gets apple.com? The answer is the first person to register it. Let's say Joe Apple got it. Along comes Apple Computers and [bam] they say that Apple is a registered trademark...yada yada yada...they want apple.com. What happens?
Simple. The domain is transfered into escrow and held by some disinterested third party. The homepage for apple.com is split into two horizontal pieces. The top half is a link to joeapple.com and the bottom half is a link to applecomputers.com. Now we wait a month and see who gets the most hits. Not surpisingly, it's applecomputers.com. This means that applecomputers.com now gets bumped up to the top half of the apple.com homepage and applecomputers gets sent the bill for apple.com's registration, which is then refunded to Joe Apple.
Joe Apple gets a free ride and gets to keep some part of his apple.com homepage...but because the web was meant to be a public service he has to recognize that people who type in "apple.com" are more likely to be looking for Apple Computers than the story of his life.
Along comes Apple music. They want in on this. They send in proof of their trademark and a new section is added to the bottom of the homepage with a link to applemusic.com. The stats are reset and after a month, Apple Computers comes out on top, followed by Apple Music and Joe Apple. Apple Computer is still paying all the bills to host the apple.com site but benefits by having the top slot.
And so on for Apple Plumbing, Apple Tractors and Apple Organically Produced Produce. Each gets a identically sized portion of the website with enough room to put a logo, a company blurb and a link to a separate UNIQUE website.
Unique websites will not be a problem because trademarks are not allows for them. There cannot be two "Apple Computer". They would have to add something to be allowed the trademark, like "Apple Computer Fish Aquariums". To decide if a name is common or unique, you simply look at the trademarks. If there is more than one company using that mark, it's becomes common and follows the above plan. Anyone who registered applecomputers.com is obviously cybersquatting so it's very easy to address those situations.
Oh, and the DNS should be divided up alphabetically to allow for any possible top-level domain. apple.computers or apple.music or apple.plumbing.
Summary: web names are supposed to help you find stuff. Let's turn these stupid silly common names that everyone is fighting over into a giant global yellow pages. If a million people expect to find ATI the video card makers at ati.com then they should be able to find it, and not Artificial Turd Industries. At the same time, Artificual Turd Industries has just as much right to be found on the web by its acronym as any other company, and if people have to do a little scrolling to find it...it it certainly no worse than any search engine.
The End.
How 'bout an endorsement, anyone?
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re:ICANN candidates (Score:1)
When I said politician, I meant it. And no, politicians aren't just people who have previously served in office. Notice at the end I said "more politicians then people". I use politician as a slur, and I direct it torwards people who appear as "fake", you know, the kind who will say anything to get elected?
Please don't be offended though. I'm sure you're a nice person, but I call it like I see it.
Re:ICANN candidates (Score:1)
Deepest of apologies. I actually wrote that using the masculine pronouns, and failed to change all of them.
I actually wrote a little bit about every candidate, but had to keep the list short. I plan on publishing a webpage with what would have been my complete comment.
But you have to admit, you're response did have the "canned spam" look. You really didn't go into detail. I mean my god, your response was a link to part of the question! You blew the chance to get your point across to a LOT of people, which makes me think you don't care.
Again, I'm sure you're a nice person, but perhaps this isn't something you're fit to get involved with.
ICANN candidates (Score:3)
Interesting, only response was "I agree". If he/she can't even put forth the effort to explain himself, why should I endorse him?
Liz Bartlett
Another typical politician. And if there was one area where I did not want politicians, it's in ICANN. And who cares is she's a woman. Aren't we supposed to be beyond the genital gap?
5. I do not have strong views on the organizational split of IP address and DNS root server management. I feel this issues are best solved on a "what is technically best" basis.
Then why endorse you?
Adam L. Beberg
I like this guy. He (or whoever wrote this response) seems to "get it".
Governments do not need ICANN's help to limit freedoms.
His insights are those which we need in ICANN.
There seem to be more politicians then people in this election. If you have a vote, don't waste it, and certainly do NOT auction it off [slashdot.org].
Hard to endorse: Conspiracy or incompetence? (Score:1)
Ah, /. wants to limit readership? (Score:1)
What kind of narrow-minded, egotistical, nationalistic attitude is that? With that kind of reasoning you should also restrict yourself to male, underage, white geeks. Or do you mean slashdot isn't supposed to be a worldwide forum?
I'm sorry, but I had expected better from the slashdot team, not this all-too-standard American reduction of "the world" to itself and at most it's neighbours.
Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
Re:Golly! (Score:1)
Yes. He goes by the name of Pitr and sysadmins for an ISP somewhere in BC. Here's his webpage [userfriendly.org].
Silly question. :-P
-RickHunter
Re:serious (Score:1)
"Now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Re:No one seems opposed to TLD expansion (Score:1)
I'm glad you like OpenNIC's conceptual basis. We're discussing the legalities of it on our list right now. Big fun.
It makes me much more confident that I should support you if I don't get on the ballot myself (I'm candidate Robin Bandy). Though I don't agree with you about the benefit of sheer volume of TLDs, and I really do think that what we need are more strongly chartered TLDs rather than just more, I think that a collaborative root is the only way to fairly structure the system.
Cheers,
-robin
Tod Phipps and Thomas Jefferson (Score:1)
But wasn't it Jefferson who said:
If nature has make one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of the every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character too, is that no one possess the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who recieves an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me . . . Inventions, then, cannot, in nature, be subject of property."I got that little peice of Jefferson wisdom from Lawrence Lessing's book (Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace). He (Lessing) disagrees with it slightly (as do I, but you'll have to read the book for his argument). IP is a Good Thing only if it promotes the "sciences and useful arts" more than it hurts. I believe that limited Copyright and sane patents do that, but current statute and practice surrounding IP only makes it a weapon for corporatism.
I find this man's (Tod Phipps) view of IP as a extention of real-space property alarming. Property exists in real space due to scarcity, but, as Jefferson pointed out quite well, there is no such restraint for Intellectual Property. Phipps recognizes that IP (mostly in the form of instructions fed to logic circuts) will become incresingly important in all of our lives, but then he seems to make the logical leap that its importance should mean that the creater (or copyright holder as the case might be) should have greater control over the idea in the "Digital Millenium" (to coin a term 8-) ).
Tod Phipps is not the only canadate that I have issues with, but I think his mindset is most certantly not the kind of thing I would like to see added to ICANN's already IP-centric methodolgy.
I'll most likely vode for Lessing, although I will nominate Auterbach and I might vote for him, I think he, Simmions, and Berbag all look like good canadates. I'll have to find out more about them.
Re:Golly! (Score:1)
Actually, there are many such people. But they're not running for the Board, they're already there, running ICANN [icann.org].
Fortunately, we have Karl Auerbach's platform [cavebear.com].
How to Endorse a Nominee (Score:2)
In the event that you want to endorse one of these candidates (I agree with earlier posters who recommended Karl Auerbach [cavebear.com] and Barbara Simons [simons.org]), you'll need to jump through several hoops.
First, you need to activate your ICANN membership [icann.org].To do that, you'll need your membership number and password (get your reminder e-mail here [icann.org]) and the PIN that was mailed to your home address.
Once you're an active member, you can endorse a candidate [icann.org] on the ICANN Membership pages. Again, you'll need your membership number, password and PIN.
Most people don't realize that you can change your endorsement right up until the last day. (See Endorsement FAQ [icann.org].) So if the first candidate you endorse has no chance of reaching the 2% threshold (check the progress here [icannnot.org]), you can log in again and change your endorsement to help someone else you like get over the hump.
The endorsement period closes on August 31st. And remember, this endorsement process is simply for purposes of setting the ballot; you'll be able to vote for anyone on the ballot when the election takes place in October. Endorse early and often.
-- Bret
Re:Golly! (Score:1)
Re:serious (Score:2)
I think the whole election thing is just a sham. They don't want voters taking away their power (even though we're only getting a tidbit). That's why it's been such an ordeal to even get in.
Re:serious (Score:3)
I agree. What I'd like to know is will there ever be another chance to register and vote? I feel the fairness of the process was spurious at best, considering I attempted numerous times to register, but repeatedly met errors which prevented me ever managing to complete the registration process. Given the technical difficulties they had, it's a wonder anyone managed to register for the voting at all, and I personally feel that due to this, the process, however seriously it is taken, is not representative of the community, and the results are therefore also misrepresentative of the community. Additionally, I never saw this publicized ANYWHERE except
Bah! The whole process just sucks ass. ICANN stinks, and I have no illusions that the end result will remotely resemble a state of sanity.
So much hot air ... So little time (Score:2)
Maybe a really well-written Perl script could diff these jokers for us?
Re:No one seems opposed to TLD expansion (Score:1)
I'm curious what kind of huge mess you foresee?
Except for your comment, the opposition to an increase in the number of top level domains comes mainly from trademark folks who don't want to have to take the time and trouble to police their marks in multiple TLD name spaces. They clearly have a point. But I don't find it a sufficiently strong point to justify the draconian impositions that are being placed on the ability of those of us who don't have trademarks to create and use names.
As you may know, I'm a strong advocate of a massive - and I mean on the order of 10,000/year - new TLDs. See http://www.cavebear.com/ial c/platform.htm#dnspol-tldpol [cavebear.com]
As a technical matter, the DNS system can handle it - a million TLD root zone is really no different in terms of traffic flows or server burdens than a multi-million entry .com zone.
My personal hope is that in the longer term all this warring over DNS names will tend to diminish as real directory services come along. But that's merely a hope and perhaps not a very realistic one.
In addition to new TLD's I also believe in multiple, competing DNS root systems - like the OpenNIC. My own machines use the ORSC/Superroot root. See my comments on multiple roots at http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/index.htm#m ultiple_roots
[cavebear.com]
So far the only difficulty that I've encountered has been with a machine that was on a net where the ISP not-so-transparently proxied web queries and the not-very-transparent proxy was re-resolving the DNS names in the HTTP queries rather than using the destination IP address from the TCP connection it was intercepting.
--karl--
Re:No one seems opposed to TLD expansion (Score:1)
(I'm using one posting to respond to you and to Steve Magruder.)
I'm curious - what legal issues do you perceive with regard to OpenNIC? I personally don't see any issues unless one tries to pass a competing root off as being the ICANN legacy root (or vice versa. ;-) So, I'd really appreciate hearing more. (I'd probably ask to join your list but as you might guess, I'm up to my ears in e-mail right now - just as you probably are - with regard to the so called "member-endorsements".)
Anyway, as for the volume of TLDs - I personally don't care whether in practice there remain the current 250 TLDs or we add 2 million more - rather I just don't see that I'm the person to impose my decision. I'd rather throw the door open and let those who want to be a TLD have a chance to succeed or fail on their own. Thus to answer Steve Magruder's concerns - I'm happy to let economic forces have free reign to fight it out and come up with anywhere from a few (or zero) to a lot of new TLDs. I'd rather let Adam Smith's invisible hand do the regulating rather then ICANN's fist.
(From a technical point of view I am concerned that we don't flatten DNS so much that it loses the benefits of a well formed hierarchy - if the DNS became essentially a flat lookup with everything in the root we'd have a pretty horrible technical problem - but from my tests [both actual and mental] that problem doesn't happen until we are up into the several million TLD range. I got my 10,000 new TLD/year number by looking for picking a number that wouldn't result in one million TLDs until a hundred years had gone by. [I figure we might have good directories by then.])
With regard to chartered TLDs - I'm not against 'em if the charter and its enforcement is done by the operator of the TLD. I hardly think that we want ICANN to become even bigger and meaner by giving it the power to be a policeman over TLD charters. I figure that those who operate TLD's can enforce their own rules. I *do* have some uncertainty over the question of the degree to which TLD operators can change their rules/charters on their existing customers. (Perhaps I'm responding to how NSI has yanked around those of us who are trapped in .com.) And I do wonder what happens deep in the subdomains.
By-the-way, I like much of what I saw in OpenNIC - it took me a moment to realize that the way you are setting up the zone files turns many of our local servers into root servers that act as secondaries to your tier 2 servers. That seems sensible and I'm curious whether you have had any difficulty or tuning issues caused by record or zone time-to-live values?
Your usenet-like way of having "the community" chose which TLDs should come to pass is intriguing. I do remember when one of my favorite newsgroups (I'm a railroad fanatic, especially when steam is involved) was involved in a big fight over whether it ought to be broken into several groups or not. So I have some wounds that occassionally suggest to me that sometimes there ought to be room for the lone wolf to go out and give something a try even though "the community" (or as it was called when I was in school - "the establishment") isn't steadfast behind the idea.
Good luck in the this election! I wish ICANN's "nomination" committee hadn't pre-filled the ballot with so many of their own names - thus leaving those of us who are having this real election only a few leftover slots.
--karl--
Re:Karl Auerbach and TLDs (Score:3)
With regard to the number of top-level-domains (TLDs) - you are assuming that they are limited to only threee characters. In reality, according to the DNS RFCs, a TLD (and any "label") in DNS can be up to 63 characters long. With the DNS character set currently being [a-z0-9/-] (case is folded and there are limitations on where the hyphen may appear) we have something between 36**63 and 37**63 possible TLD names.
And with the development of internationalized DNS, and hence an extended character set, the number of possiblities becomes even larger.
Peter Deutsch ran an experiment last year - he took a then recent .com zone file - containing several million names - and ran it through a sed script to create a root zone file in which the TLDs were all those names that are presently in .com. In other words, what is cavebear.com became the TLD "cavebear", and sun.com became the TLD "sun"..
Peter loaded this massive root zone file into BIND on a RH6.1 box and - after adding more memory to the box - spent a while playing with a root server that was serving up several million TLDs.
This is an existance proof that not only can DNS servers in serve up root zones with several million TLDs, but that they can do it in practice.
One might say that this was a contrived test. Sure - he didn't put it into production.
But if one examines how DNS works, one can see that a zone is a zone is a zone and that the database access methods that are used for the massive .com zone are also used for all other zones including the root zone. And we have a production proof that the access to .com, with its several million entries works - and it works day in and day out. By logical induction we can conclude that a root zone with millions of entries will perform equally well.
--karl--
Golly! (Score:3)
Re:Slashdot's demographics (Score:2)
5% are interns picked at random by our studio audience based upon talent, poise, speaking ability and the bathing suit contest.
The other 5% live somewhere else and found out about Slashdot via the WorldWide Electronic Brain Network and Compositorium otherwise known as the Internet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the "Civil Society Statement" (Score:2)
Slashdot's demographics (Score:2)
What about India (less modernised, but 5 times bigger than the States)?
What about Europe (as much equiped and bigger)?
And could we know the full statistics about Slashdot users? 35% North America, 25% Europe, 35% Asia, 5% other?
Re:I'm voting for Marty Freeman (Score:1)
Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
Request that ICANN re-open the membership drive. (Score:1)
However, according to this article [fairfax.com.au], the total number of Internet users will reach 375 MILLION (!) sometime during this year. The last time I checked, 158,000 out of 378 million is only 0.000421 % representation of the entire community. Obviously, this is a case of a minority making decisions for the entire community, something which history has almost always proved a Very Bad Idea(TM).
The only reason American democracy can (used to) work is because a majority of the voters choose to make their opinions count. Unfortunately, in the last national election in America, only 45% of voters voted, so we're approaching the same fate here in the USA. In the Constitution it is called a quorum, by which more than half the members of either house of Congress must be present for any action to be taken at all.
Of course, getting half of all the Internet users to sign up for ICANN's at-large membership is, in my opinion, a pipe-dream of the most grandoise sort, but there should be at least 1% representation before any action is taken. 3.75 million members wouldn't be that hard to find, would they?
Therefore, I would like to propose a massive e-mail campaign to urge ICANN to not take any action on this election until a much larger percentage of Internet users will be represented in the final results.
Please e-mail ICANN [mailto] and tell them that you demand the membership drive be re-opened! The future of the free Internet depends on it!
serious (Score:2)
Founder's Camp [founderscamp.com]
How about some ballots that really count? (Score:1)
Re:So who cares? (Score:1)
Candidate Status Page [icannnot.org] at ICANNNot.org (cool if only for the CGI that's behind it).
Re:ICANN candidates (Score:1)
I too use politican as a slur - and I've always felt that the worst people to put into political office are the ones who want it the most. That's why I was stunned and shocked to read your comment. Perhaps being involved in this whole election process is corrupting me, and I should withdraw before my character collapses into a little pile of jello. When I embarked on this path, I honestly did not consider it a political venture.
Oh, and despite how my responses might have sounded, there's nothing in them that would change even if the questions were asked by NSI. My responses were certainly not intended to "get me elected" as I doubt that will happen. (Though I won't pull a Darva Conger if it did)
/.ed again? (Score:1)
Did we just slashdot the endorsement process? Or has the period of apathy already started?
Re:So who cares? (Score:2)
Re:ICANN candidates (Score:3)
Re:serious (Score:1)
But I remember sitting at ICANN meetings in 1999 where members of the ICANN's Interim board projected only 100 - 200 people would be interested enough to register for the election. (The Interim board members are the At Large members appointed to the board with the guiding hand of IBM. 5 of these are to be replaced in this election.)
How could they of been so wrong? Well, some of the Interim board members really think the ICANN is a technical and administrative body. These board members haven't a clue as to their responsibility for the broader society. They don't see the impact the net is having on the world as something they need be concerned about. And they think, "Why would people vote?"
This view receives some small support in the technical world from people who just want to code and not be bothered by "politicians." This group says, "Melting the polar ice caps - me?"
But most on the ICANN board know that the technical and administrative claim is just a ploy to keep inquiring minds out of their bailiwick. The business oriented board thinks they have this rigged. And they're probably right. They've closed off communication between members making a discussion of issues impossible.
I'm a candidate for an At Large position, and I think there's good reason to put me on the board. But I can't communicate with the voting members - I can't even get a list of fellow members. And there's no discussion allowed on the ICANN web site.
But I'm delighted to see 158,000 registered as At Large voters. If we could find out how to communicate with one another, maybe we'd have a democratic election. Maybe next time.
But for now I thank God for Slashdot, at least some communication can take place.
Tom Lowenhaupt
At Large Candidate
Re:Golly! (Score:1)
Yes, actually I do. I am putting ICANN on my list
at #15 (right after the WIPO and RIAA - lots to
do). ICANN will work nicely into my overall plans
of a Global Smiting(tm) and Preview to the
Apocalypse(tm) featuring Al Gore and Pauly Shore as two of the Horseman (teaser - guess which ones they'll be)
Marty Freeman (Score:1)
Re:ICANN candidates (Score:1)
Re:ICANN candidates (Score:2)