<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=046494105-04072014><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Dear
Evan,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046494105-04072014><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046494105-04072014><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>I
fully agree with you that it would be better if ICANN were ultimately
accountable to all the world's Internet users (or maybe even to all the world's
people, since I believe we all want all people to use the
Internet).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046494105-04072014><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046494105-04072014><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>As you
say below, the initial structure of ICANN did allow for significant influence by
users, but this was later modified to reduce that
influence.<BR></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046494105-04072014><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>If we
can come up with a practical scheme allowing all users to excercise control over
ICANN's accountability, I would be all for it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046494105-04072014><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046494105-04072014><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>If
not, then at least let's implement accountability by registrants, which is not
perfect (for the reasons you say) but surely better than the current setup which
has the drawbacks that you outline below.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046494105-04072014><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial><BR>Best,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=046494105-04072014><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Richard</DIV></FONT></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
evanleibovitch@gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>Evan Leibovitch<BR><B>Sent:</B> jeudi, 3. juillet 2014 22:39<BR><B>To:</B>
Richard Hill<BR><B>Cc:</B> Eric Burger; Chapter Delegates<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA
Stewardship Transition Coordination Group<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On 3 July 2014 12:09, Richard Hill <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch" target=_blank>rhill@hill-a.ch</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><U></U>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">
<DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial>In democracies, the ultimate
authority (parliament) is elected by all those affected, it is not chosen by
a NomCom.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>That's because the ICANN "Nominating Committee" is misnamed.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>What ICANN has is a selection committee. A true *NOMINATING* Committee
would create a ballot of eligible candidates from which an electorate would
choose representatives. It's that last little step -- having an electorate --
that ICANN has consciously dispensed with. It's why ICANN has worked so hard
to evade the traditional structure of nonprofits (such as our Chapter's) whose
Boards are accountable to a membership.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time there were direct elections to ICANN, which were gamed.
The response to gaming was to eliminate elections, rather than address the
gaming issue. Perhaps that over-reaction needs to be revisited, especially now
that e-voting tech has advanced so much lately.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>My suggestion is that the ultimate oversigh for ICANN's
economic regulatory function should be the end-users, that is the
registrants of domain names (people/organizations that hold domain name
registrations).</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>End users != registrants.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This error occurs frequently within ICANN, and is a constant source of
required vigilance.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>End users are the people sitting at screens or on their mobiles, who
access the Internet without any need for a domain name or intention to possess
one. I reject the assertion by many in the domain industry that everyone needs
to own a domain, that each person on earth is just a potential registrant who
hasn't yet been adequately marketed to.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Among the current family of registrants -- owning a substantial chunk of
the total domain name pool -- are name speculators and squatters. ICANN's
tolerance of their presence creates artificial scarcity, raises the cost of
Internet entry to startup businesses, and causes legitimate site and brand
owners to needlessly register defensive names. (They also dramatically inflate
the total number of extant domains, which is now arguably a source of ICANN's
own financial dependence. But that's a different thread.)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In this family are also those who create domain names with intent to
defraud. This is why the Red Cross request for domain name protection came in
for special attention at the ICANN Board recently (supported by the GAC and
ALAC), why the lack of enforced WHOIS accuracy has become a source of
controversy, and why the ALAC continues to challenge the utility of gTLD
"Public Interest Committments" over the protests of the domain industry.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>So, Richard, I must take issue with your definition. While the interests
of registrants often have much in common with those of end users, they are
most certainly not 100% in sync and occasionally in direct opposition.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Registrants have their own constituencies within the "Non-Contracted
House" half of ICANN's GNSO, from which they protect their interests. That's
not At-Large, which, like ISOC, exists to assert the perspective of end-users
-- the billions outside ICANN's direct revenue stream who are nonetheless
impacted by its actions.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>- Evan</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>