[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group

[Vint Cerf]

Richard,

the idea that there should be a global election for board members of ICANN
by citizens of the world and users of the Internet was then and I think
still is unworkable. Qualifying the electorate and running a verifiable
election (ie, free of fraud) via the Internet is still out of the question.
In places like Estonia where strong authentication is available it appears
possible to achieve such an objective but this isn't feasible today on a
global scale. I think the At-Large mechanism is about the best one can do
along these lines for now.

vint



On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>  Dear Evan,
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* evanleibovitch at gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com]*On
> Behalf Of *Evan Leibovitch
> *Sent:* jeudi, 3. juillet 2014 22:39
> *To:* Richard Hill
> *Cc:* Eric Burger; Chapter Delegates
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to
> theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
>
>  On 3 July 2014 12:09, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
>>  In democracies, the ultimate authority (parliament) is elected by all
>> those affected, it is not chosen by a NomCom.
>>
>
> That's because the ICANN "Nominating Committee" is misnamed.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
>
>
> End users != registrants.
>
> This error occurs frequently within ICANN, and is a constant source of
> required vigilance.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140704/1a49283c/attachment.htm>