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

[Vint Cerf]

The WHOIS database would need to be a lot more solid, I guess, to make that
work. There is also the question of users who are not domain name holders
which draws me back to ALAC.  I don't have a good answer here except to say
that the "election" in the early years of ICANN proved problematic in many
respects.

v



On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>  Dear Vint,
>
> I agree that it might not be feasible to organize a global election of the
> ICANN Board ty the citizens of the world, or by the users of the Internet.
>
> That's why I suggest instead that the ICANN Board be elected by
> registrants (holders) of domain names.  That is quite feasible using
> existing technologies and databases. I realize that some registrants use
> anonimity services, but it would be up to them to declare themselves as
> registrants if they wish to participate in the election, if not they would
> simply be absentees.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com]
> *Sent:* vendredi, 4. juillet 2014 13:12
> *To:* rhill at hill-a.ch
> *Cc:* Evan Leibovitch; Chapter Delegates
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Appointments to
> theNTIA/IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
>
> 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/20140704/9e3928a7/attachment.htm>