Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 01:29 AM 8/22/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>In trying to judge among the candidates, perhaps it will help to put 
>questions specific to them.
>I've noted that far too many participants have broad, negative agendas, 
>focusing on various, vague, general fears, rather than on specific 
>constructive goals or even constructive approaches to making 
>improvements.  There also seems to be an unfortunate lack of understanding 
>of DNS technical details or even of ICANN's limited scope.


I was intrigued by Dave's comment, so I took a look at the acceptance statements of the various candidates, to see what material in those statements arguably proposed "specific constructive goals" or specific "constructive approaches to making improvements," or displayed "understanding of DNS technical details" or "ICANN's limited scope."  Results follow.

Jonathan Cohen

>I hope to work with the DNSO and the public to determine what possibilities exist to expand the UDRP, in the hope that a broader spectrum of
>       Internet disputes will be capable of resolution online in a time frame and at a cost that makes it accessible and useful for a larger number of Internet
>       users globally.  I believe that the participation of interested parties from different countries, cultures and legal systems are essential to the development
>       of an "enhanced" UDRP to make it a widely, if not universally, useful mechanism for Internet dispute resolution, and I will make every effort to
>       encourage such broad international participation.  
>       I am hopeful that, if elected to a subsequent term, I can work with the Board to forge strong, cooperative links with the ccTLD community.  I think it
>       is very important that an acceptable and positive relationship amongst ICANN, the ccTLDs and the GAC be reached as soon as possible.

Peter de Blanc (de Blanc established a ccTLD registry, and so presumably is familiar with DNS technical details)

>I feel that is our responsibility, as Internet professionals, to champion the cause of outreach to under serviced populations. . . .
> It is also our responsibility to give more than lip service to the concepts of "Open and transparent process" while we go
>            about the work of Internet governance. We need more outreach and encouragement of those "sitting on the sidelines", so
>            they become a part of the process. The process will be completely open when all the stakeholders are present and
>            participating. 
>            I stand for "limited Internet governance, personal freedom and responsibility, and a robust and interoperable DNS".

Jill Keogh

none

James P. Love

>>>>
> a.   ICANN should not do very much.  It should not be a big bureaucracy, or seek to centralize power and authority over the Internet.
>
> b.   There is a danger that people will see ICANN as having such power, and seek to control ICANN in order to advance various agendas.  One can come to different judgements about the merits of various agendas, and still see that ICANN is ill-suited to be a broad governance  institution.
> c.   Some want ICANN to be a tool to protect intellectual property.  I agree that it is important to protect intellectual property, subject to important public interest  limitations and exceptions.  However, ICANN does not have the expertise or accountability be a global policy maker in the ever growing range of IPR issues that have or could be raised in ICANN forums.  ICANN responsibilities in this area should be limited and narrow. 
> d.   The UDRP has performed useful services to trademark owners, but the process itself could be improved.  In particular, ICANN or WIPO needs to deal with the tendency of UDRP panels to ignore the public's rights in the areas of criticism, parody or association.  Domain names are part of speech, and the UDRP process should explicitly protect free speech. There are also many UDRP decisions that have anticompetitive consequences, including those that give trademark owners improper control over generic names, or which undermine a  firm's right to comparative marketing. . . .
> e.   ICANN should not require new TLD registries to sign contractual provisions or make other assurances that they will not participate in alternative root systems.  I am not aware of any evidence that such alternatives present problems for the Internet, and ICANN should avoid practices that will be seen as monopolistic or anticompetitive.
> f.   The TLD space should be vastly expanded.  This will greatly reduce the pressure on the existing UDRP process.  There is no reason why there should be so few opportunities for  various parties to use second level domain names that have such obvious multiple uses.  ICANN should not seek to micro- manage registry policies on the allocation of domain names. ICANN's oversight should be limited to a narrow set of consumer protection and technical issues, including, for example, malfeasance (failures to maintain acceptable services), fraud or price gouging.
> g.   The DNSO itself gives far too much weight to business interests.  Consumer interests should have a much greater role in the DNSO decision making process.  Individual domain name holders should have a separate constituency.  The non-commercial constituencies should not be a catch-all for all disenfranchised members of the public seeking a voice in the DNSO. 
<<<<

Ronald N. Weikers

none -- This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list. Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html