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

[Vint Cerf]

separating businesses from individuals might still be a problem. Hard to
say whether voting would overcome some preferences for anonymity in the
database.

v



On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>  If registrants could vote, then they would have an additional incentive
> to keep the WHOIS database up to date.  Same as corporate shareholders: if
> they want to vote, they make sure that the company secretary has their
> current address.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com]
> *Sent:* vendredi, 4. juillet 2014 16:48
> *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
>
> 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/efe2ae2f/attachment.htm>