Re: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates
On 05:23 10/08/01, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
1. What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the ccTLD Constituency
The ccTLD are two things:
- TLD and they should stay in a DNSO made of ccTLD, sTLD, gTLD, Registrars, Registrants, DNS Developers and representatives of the Internet Users Constituency/SO.
- the "cc", i.e. NICs. As such they are trustees of their national community and should definitely form a dedicated body. This should not create them a problem as they consider several structures to address problems of different nature.
IMHO NICs should be the missing members of the ICANN and form its GA. This would not change anything to the ICANN organization. But they would have a yearly contribution and not a contract nor a donation, they would vote the Budget, define the policy to be followed by the BoD, approve the ByLaws and provide an escalation for the increased number of possible reconsideration demands. They would also provide the ICANN with a true international legitimacy. ".us" and ".eu" will help in making this understood.
2. Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may result in changes in
please provide the URL
The DNSO is a compromise between DNS interests and User Interests. This should disapear once the @large are created.
3. What is your position on current registrar transfer policies?
That a WG-Review should be set-up to see how the ICANN may remove itself from this matter to be addressed by a common structure to the Registrars dialoguing with Registries. As per RFC 1591 the root operator is not in the business to judge the TLD Manager and reseller issues.
The directive attitude adopted by the ICANN in opposition with the RFCs turns out to be catastrophic. I observe there is not such a problem at ccTLDs. I do not agree with several aspects of the French AFNIC policy, but I observe that such problems are unknown to them.
This means there is certainly a solution. The ICANN interference with no escalation procedure about this involvement is certainly one of the problem.
I underline that I speak here in the interest of the ICANN. Not of the IDNHs. I believe however that the long term interests of the IDNHs would be far better protected by an ICANN not involved in these issues and by an escalation authority for Registration problem (FCC?)
4. What changes would you propose with respect to the UDRP?
1. that the UDRP case is made public and exclusively dealt on line
2. that the plaintiff and the defendant first agree on their understand of what is at stake i.e. the domain name definition to use
3. that he defendant chooses the UDRP organization
4. that the panelist is replaced by a randomly chosen Internet User jury of real size
5. that the jury be presented the current site and the opposed site moke-up to better understand
6. that the jury consider only the possible confusion for the users - naturally respecting famous marks, geographic names, private name, by way of common sense independent from cultures.
7. that the defendant may lose his DN only be a 2/3 vote against him
An UDRP should not be a conflict resolution procedure but an access information clarification system the same way TM are not a system to give a property over a name, but to avoid confusion.
Only TM registered in the on-line class should be considered to protect on-line class TM owners against largest TM owners.
5. Do you support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent
No! The SO are a way for the ICANN to benefit for free from the advise of the benevolent Members. The least is can do is to find the SOs.
This would only lead to frustration and development of parallel ICANN as there are already parallel roots. Unless the ICANN wants to live in a parallel world.
6. Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain
One, the DNSO/BC should foster an active SME ML and committee as per its by-laws. Not to only have a filtered and abstracted list.
Two; the DNSOBC should include an "executive club" with only people in Command of their own business whatever the size, so real decision makers could push the whole thing.
Three, an SME Constituency might be desirable within the @large organization.
7. The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to
8. How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout?
Absurd. This has nothing to do with networking and serious user servicing.
Every Registrar should be a TLD Manager first and have tools to protect its own Registrants community. From this experience and value added services they should commercially peer with other TLDs.
Most of the problems are only because of the TLD scarcity organized by the ICANN to stabilize a limited number of economically strong "global" TLDs and force the ccTLD to sign a contract with them. Should there be thousands of sex.tld I doubt there would be any landslide for sex.info.
9. What comments would you make regarding ICP-3?
An IntentIy Confusing Process tending to present as 'permanent" a policy contradicting RFC 920 and titled as .."current". It is a poor tempative to fight "alternative root" propositions no one supports.
It is totally inadequate to fight the TLD squatting adn address Market needs. It reflects a wrong understanding of the general nature of the name space only also concerning the Internet. A old misconception of the DNS system which not a hierarchical data base but as every other name space a multi layered filter to access pertinent information.
10. It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were selected and yet
In announcing a meeting with the Root Services Centers to make the media understand where the new trend will be. I would announce root pre-registration of every moTLD complying with the TLD recognition criteria by the Root and TLD Best Practices and organized as a non-profit registrant consortium or association. This would decrease the pressure on DNs pricing, kill cybersquatting, prevent TLD squatting, would be no risk on taken TLD strings since their management would be by the Registrants. The interim initial period would permit to better understand the large number of innovation and how to help them cooperata. As soon as the situation would seem acceptable and no latter than 6 months latter I would fill them into the root.
Legal aspects are not ICANN's cup of tea.
11. As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in namespace grows;
I there is a collision it means that a TLD Manager has decided to operate without caring about existing users wearing that TLD. This means that TLD Manager is not responsible and should not be permitted to continue operating.
Let take the .biz case. NeuLevel and ARNI are in commercial dispute this is of no concern for users. NeuLevel should only register the ARNI registrants - as I am sure ARNI would do for NeuLevel ones. This mutual registration should continue until they settle their case. This is what should happen among grown educated people. The interest of the user and of the registrant first.
Neverthless, Vint Cef is the first one to have deliberately introduced a collider.
12. What is your position with respect to the future of .org?
Not to be indirectly managed by the ICANN Staff. Its TLD Manager should be the NCDNHC and the operations subcontracted to a private operator.
13. What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?
I oppose Whois. I favor an opt-in appraoch if people like it. No information should be disclosed on registrants, only an anonymous mail contact provied for problem and some offers. If you want to know more: you go and see the site.
14. Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract?
Should be enough if there was not such a contract. RT/BP foresee an unilateral declaration.
Under the present situation .info, .biz cases show that the contracts should be reviewed be a competent party. I propose that a LEGALSO is created to review at low cost the ICANN contracts in both an International legal and a technical perspective.
15. When would you begin the next round of TLD selections?
Never. The ICANN is not in the business of selecting TLD (i.e. content and business auditing) but in IANA function operations.
As indicated above a transition period would be advisable towards a permanent free registration situation - in the respect of the TLD criteria.