[icann-nominations] Nomination Acceptance - James Love
1. Full name of the nominee:
James Packard Love
2. E-mail address of the nominee:
3. Organization you work for:
I am Director of the Consumer Project on Technology, a group
created by Ralph Nader, and an employee of the Center for Study
of Responsive Law.
4. Snail-mail address (street, city, country):
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, USA
5. The region that includes the country of which you are a
6. The region that includes the country in which you reside:
7. A clear statement of acceptance of the nomination:
I accept the nomination to the ICANN board that was made by
Dennis P. Schaefer.
8. If you are a Member of the Names Council, state your
intention to resign from the Names Council if you are
elected to the ICANN Board:
I am not a member of the Names Council.
9. A Curriculum Vitae (no more than 500 words long):
I have a personal web page on the Internet at
http://www.cptech.org/jamie, which provides additional background
I am the Director of the Consumer Project on Technology, and
I been an employee of the Center for Study of Responsive Law
since 1990. For 1988 to 1990 I was Senior Economist for the
Frank Russell Company, a large pension fund consulting firm,
where I advised IBM, Shell, DEC and other clients on investments,
and worked on a team that created a portfolio reporting system
for IBM. Before that I was Visiting Lecturer at Rutgers, where I
taught economics, and a research associate at Princeton
University. I am "ABD" from Princeton in a program in Economics
and Public policy, but also have received a Masters in Public
Administration from Harvard in 1981, and a Masters in Public
Affairs at Princeton in 1985.
I participate in a number of civic affairs, and am currently
the co-chair of the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD)
Working Group on E-Commerce (http://www.tacd.org), as well as the
TACD subgroup on pharmaceuticals.
Lately my own work has focused mostly on electronic commerce
and access to medical technologies. In both areas, I do a lot of
work on issues concerning intellectual property rights. I work
in Washington, DC, but the majority of our work is international.
CPT's work is extensively documented on the web at
10. A statement indicating your ideas, intentions and/or the
reason why you consider you should be elected to serve in
the ICANN Board (no more than 500 words):
I have written about ICANN from time to time, and much of
CPT's work on ICANN is on the web at:
My brief statement regarding my "ideas, intentions and/or
the reason" for election is as follows.
a. ICANN should not do very much. It should not be a big
bureaucracy, or seek to centralize power and authority over
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. I have sent some
comments on the UDRP to WIPO, in an August 11, 2000 letter,
and will be sending some other comments in a few weeks.
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
James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 184.108.40.20676
Election of the ICANN Board Director by the DNSO
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Arc00/maillist.html