have been
read to the assembled group.Messages marked with have been
read to the assembled group.
| Clifford Paravicini (BolNet - NIC BOLIVIA) Participacion de los Gobiernos (Public Comment, 8/25/99 6:44:19 PM, #504) En el caso Boliviano existe armonia en la concepcion sobre el manerjo de dominios donde coinciden: Gobierno, Universidades e ISPs (los mas significativos). Las coincidencias reciden en: 1o Hasta ahora no han existido conflictos en la administracion del dominio nacional. 2o Si bien existe presion para "liberar" el dominio .com.bo, hasta el presente las entidades comerciales no han elaborado una propuesta acabada. 3o Si existe algun costo "internacional" de quienes proveen numeros IP, es obvio que a nivel nacional en Bolivia tendra que existir un costo congruente con los grandes proveedores para realizar la redistribucion a nivel nacional. 4o Si existe algun costo en la antigua asignacion del dominio .bo y sus niveles secundarios, esto tambien se tranferira a los usuarios finales que requieran esos dominios. Esto es un servicio por lo tanto se paga lo razonanble, no es un negocio. Esto es todo por el momento. Atentamente. Clifford |
| francois menard (consultant) SRS Protocol and IETF RFC (Public Comment, 8/25/99 6:19:48 PM, #502) I would like to ask NSI if they intend to see their proprietary SRS protocol be standardized by an IETF working group ? -=Francois=- |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) IDNO petition (Public Comment, 8/25/99 6:16:30 PM, #501) Why is the IDNO petition, a petition that was made in a timely manner and in proper form, not on the agenda for this meeting? |
| Dennis Schaefer (Cyberspace Assn) (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 6:13:57 PM, #500) Estoy dispuesto a creer que Uds' removieron este reunion afuera de los EEUU para el proposito de evadir las autoridades constitucionales que deberian de haber traido este proceso a todo un fin inmediato. Dennis Schaefer |
| Mark Langston (Individual Domain Name Owner) Clearness? Fariness? (Public Comment, 8/25/99 6:05:30 PM, #498) If you insist on being clear rather than fair, the only thing you'll end up with is a framework that is clearly unfair. I fail to understand why all of this must be achieved without a fully-formed organization. If ICANN is our organization,r espect our wishes. |
| Mikki Barry (DNRC) Wait a minute! (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 6:05:01 PM, #497) Better to be clear than to be fair? With all due respect, just who is ICANN to be making those types of decisions for the world? Deciding this in 30 to 45 days without an individual or non-commercial constituency, and in the face of the petition presented in Berlin is a VERY bad idea. |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) consensus? (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 6:03:07 PM, #496) Your list of interested parties failed to mention the millions of individuals who own domain names and who will largely be the defendants/victims in these matters. |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Relevant (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 6:01:21 PM, #495) You are going to sit down with the voices that you "consider relevant"? Who are you to chose who is relevant? |
| Dennis Schaefer (Cyberspace Assn) (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 5:45:39 PM, #494) I have to vigorously protest the coining of a term "cybersquatting" to describe activity that should be laudatory. Speculation in domain names shouldn't be considered abusive unless it somehow engages in price fixing or other forms of anticompetitive activity. It reflects the essence of a free market economy. Some observers will be inclined to call this "corporate welfare" -- the reservation of domain names for businesses that don't want to go to the expense of buying them. Then there are free speech matters which defy description in 1000 characters. Please shelf this idea of cybersquatting and define the specific activities that deserve prohibition. Dennis Schaefer USA |
| Mikki Barry (DNRC) (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 5:45:36 PM, #493) Individual and non-profit domain name holders are impacted in a significant and negative manner. 1) There has been no consensus of the Internet community that a uniform dispute resolution policy is workable or even desirable. 2) The definition of "bad faith" in ICANN’s dispute policies is flawed and should be revisited. There are still many cases under this definition, where an innocent domain name holder operating legitimately can be charged with being a "cybersquatter" and/or having registered the domain name in "bad faith" triggering this dispute policy. As an example, "bad faith" charges may be triggered by something as innocent as a domain name holder’s wish to avoid litigation costs by settling a claim. 3) Again, the intellectual property community is asking for greater rights and protections on the Internet than they receive in any other medium. |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) VI-B 2(b) again (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 5:43:02 PM, #491) You missed the point, the "nominees" *MUST* have been selected by an express procedure by the Constituencies in order for a working group to be validly constituted. In other words, I'm suggesting that the working group was constituted in violation of the ICANN bylaws. |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Procedure? (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 5:40:41 PM, #490) Have these recommendations been passed upon by the DNSO Names Council, in particular have they found the proper degree of consensus as they are required to do in the ICANN by-laws? If not, then these are merely working group proposals and *NOT* proposals of the DNSO and are thus not yet properly before the ICANN board. |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Avoiding loaded words that prejudge the answer (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 5:35:20 PM, #489) Two questions: 1. Apparently "interested organization" were queried. Why weren't queries sent to those actually holding domain names? It would have been easy to do, the whois database lists millions of interested people and organizations. And one could have simply selected a sample to query. In the absence of all recognized Constituencies, not to mention the yet unrecognized IDNO, the Working group was underrepresentative. The ICANN board, without members elected from the at-large, is not in a position to accept the recommendations. 2. Bylaw VI-B Section 2(b) says of working groups: "...Such bodies shall include at least one representative nominated by each recognized Constituency..." Who, exactly, are the representatives that were actually "nominated" by their constituencies? |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Avoiding loaded words that prejudge the answer (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 5:33:16 PM, #488) We don't call those who speculate in land or fine art pejoritive names such as "land-squatter" or "arts-quatter". Let's recognize that in the domain name space, speculation is not an automatic wrong and drop the conclusionary word "cybersquatter". |
| Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 5:15:33 PM, #487) The consensus recommendation submitted on August 3 by the Names Council included no formal input either by the not-yet-recognized NCDHC or by the general assembly of the at large members. These issue are of major concern to the two unrepresented Internet groups -- non commercial users and individuals. To move forward on this policy with this obvious shortcoming would be a travesty and disenfranchise arguably the largest unrepresented members of the Internet.\ Why is there no time to do it right, but always time to do it over? I urge ICANN to table these recommendations until they receive broader geographic visibility and comment. |
| Srikanth Narra (IDNO) Avery case - 2 (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 5:13:37 PM, #486) With the post avery case situation. One way the mandatory "mediation" will be used by the trademark interests is as a means of getting the registerents to tip their hand at the mediation - so they can sue the heck out of them later in court. After all, the trademark interests loose nothing - bring about this mandatory mediation other than some loose change. Suggestion :- 1. Let IDNO in as a constitutency. We are not against trademark interests. A few of us are small business trademark owners ourselves. We can all working together come up with more sane proposals. All this railroading (and one sided advocacy model type functioning) will only work to discredit ICANN and everybodies efforts. 2. Trademark interests can show some creativity to build some brand equity for their prime domain names or actively promote technical solutions like realnames.com. It will aid everyone. |
| Srikanth Narra (IDNO) Avery Case. (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 5:12:57 PM, #485) Request for comment :- I would like someone from wg-a and/or the board to comment on the avery (avery.net/dennison.net) case judgement in favor of individual domain name owner passed yesterday. Especially from the perspective of WIPO's proposed dispute resolution policy in the current form. Isn't the present dispute resolution policy propose pretty much what the lower court ruled basing on at large definition of dilution and infringment. That the appeals court overruled ? How can a defendent get damages for loss of his time, etc like it was suggested by the appeals court in this case - under the "mandatory" mediation of present dispute resolution policy ? |
| Srikanth Narra (IDNO) geographic diversity (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 5:05:25 PM, #484) Merit of people should be the criteria. IF there is no geographic diversity. Efforts should be made to create awareness in those regions. We don;t want some kind of reservations !! |
| Mikki Barry (DNRC) at large means at large (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 5:01:39 PM, #483) I think all "at large" representatives should be elected "at large" with no geographic limitations whatsoever. |
| Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:56:25 PM, #482) Mr. Crew's proposal for an intermeded At Large Council was not posted for public comment in accordance with the bylaws. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the ICANN board to take any action on it or even to discuss it any further. |
| Dinesh Nair (IDNO) (Public Comment, 8/25/99 4:30:33 PM, #481) Earlier this morning I submitted an online comment -- which was read out aloud -- that each member of the Board express their views on a proposal to admit the IDNO as a constituency. 3 Board members spoke, and the Chair inferred "consensus" from that. |
| Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) (Public Comment, 8/25/99 4:25:42 PM, #480) When deciding whether or not to go forward with any of these proposals, could we please hear from *each* of the board members their reasons for support or opposition. Even without a voice vote, the Internet community deserves to know where the independent thinking of each of the unelected, interim board members. It is worrisome when we hear that all the decisions to date, save one, have been unanimous. How do you do that? You probably couldn't even agree on a lunch menu! |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:23:41 PM, #479) There can be an at-large council without removing at-large direct votes from members. |
| Srikanth Narra (IDNO) IDNO (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:22:52 PM, #477) IDNO should have its own constituency. At large is not substitute. IDNO'ers are the ones getting sued, threatened and injured directly as a side effect of ICANN efforts. Its happening now and they need representation now. Not later not as a part of someother larger audience. |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:16:33 PM, #476) Does anyone have any statistics to indicate that this "derivative action" problem is anything but a flight of imagination? I've participated in several California non-profits and never have seen a derivative action used, much less one that is sucessful. This is a complicated and troublesome mechanism to avoid a phantom. |
| Dave Crocker (Brandenburg Consulting) Online voting (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:15:41 PM, #475) Let's be VERY careful about creating institutional requirements to use technology that does not already have an extensive history of deployment and use. Online voting, digital certificates and the rest of such possibilities, but they have almost no history of use. In fact my impression is that they have no case law to make their use legally "safe". d/ |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Costs and more (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:12:53 PM, #474) An intermediary council is, as is clearly described in the staff report, a mechanism through which ICANN can strip the at-large members of the statutory rights. It strikes me as odd that ICANN is working (and presumably spending legal fees) to strip at large members of rights. |
| Dinesh Nair (IDNO) At-Large and individual domain name owners (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:07:21 PM, #473) Earlier this morning, we heard comments on how the IDNO as a constituency was unnecessary due to the at-large membership. However, what is not explicit is that the at-large includes everyone with a stake, including the unborn child in Nepal. Individual domain name holders have a stake in this as a constituency and relegating them to the at-large is a pretext for dilution of their interests. Could we at least acknowledge that domain name holders have concerns of their own which need addressing and could be diluted in the at-large ? |
| Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:07:02 PM, #472) If there is to be parity with other SOs, a fully supportable proposition, then the At Large membership should choose their own representatives, instead of the establishing the intermediation proposal suggested by Mr. Crew. The individual members would surely oppose having their representation filtered by an At Large Council *appointed* by the ICANN board. |
| Joe Chizmarik (The Knowledge Sculptors) At Large Directors (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:04:03 PM, #471) I think the At Large Directors should be elected directly by the At Large Membership; anything less would not fairly represent the people at the heart of the Internet. |
| Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Consumers too - (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:02:07 PM, #470) I propose a four pronged recruitment effort: 1. NSI and the testbed registrars are established organizations with direct and regular contact with domain name holders and should provide access to their customer lists as part of the membership drive. 2. ICANN's financial sponsors should be persuaded to contribute their contact/employee lists as well as to make contributions to an "At Large Membership Development Fund" aimed at furthering the Internet's democratic development. 3. One hundred leading consumer groups should be contacted and encouraged to approach their memberships about participating in the ICANN At Large election. 4. Existing internet-related membership organizations should be contacted for prospective members but "automatic membership" should not be provided to anyone. |
| Mikki Barry (DNRC) (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 4:00:16 PM, #469) There would be no "professionals" running the Internet if it were not for the users. The users deserve the right to have their voices heard and not diluted. This is not a case of the "elite" versus the "arrogant juvenniles." We MUST allow users to have voices. |
| Karl Auerbach (IDNO) Costs and more (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:54:16 PM, #468) The business about "statutory membership" was *NOT* discussed widely. |
| Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) "50,000 members - no capture" (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:50:02 PM, #467) I propose a four pronged recruitment effort: 1. NSI and the testbed registrars are established organizations with direct and regular contact with domain name holders and should provide access to their customer lists as part of the membership drive. 2. ICANN's financial sponsors should be persuaded to contribute their contact/employee lists as well as to make contributions to an "At Large Membership Development Fund" aimed at furthering the Internet's democratic development. 3. One hundred leading consumer groups should be contacted and encouraged to approach their memberships about participating in the ICANN At Large election. 4. Existing internet-related membership organizations should be contacted for prospective members but "automatic membership" should not be provided to anyone. |
| Srikanth Narra (IDNO) outreach /creating awareness (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:45:56 PM, #466) We should request all the registers to give out a brochure or information booklet of some sort that tells the domain name registerents in easy to understand manner - what the whole internet goverance/ICANN, etc is all about - who the players are, what their rights are and how they can participate in the process. Possibilly with links / urls of associations participating / forming. It will create enough awareness and facilitate participation of interested members. |
| Eric Menge (U.S. Small Business Administration) Small Business and at-large membership (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:45:52 PM, #465) The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration submits these two comments to the Staff's Report on ICANN At-Large Membership. Advocacy agrees with the staff's recommendations on the first four criteria presented contained in Recommendation III.1, but the requirement to support the cost of ICANN membership could create a barrier to participation for representatives from individuals and small businesses. If a membership fee is to be accessed, Advocacy urges ICANN to keep the fee low or to provide a waiver process for either the entire fee or a part of the fee. In response to Recommendation IV.2, Advocacy offers its assistance to the ICANN staff in its efforts to attract membership. Advocacy has extensive contacts with individual small businesses and with small businesses associations and could facilitate ICANN's outreach efforts. |
| Karl Auerbach Costs and more (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:45:47 PM, #464) 4. If there is to be "sunrise" provision that prevents the the at-large from arising until N members are enrolled: - Why would anyone bother to join before that level is reached? It's a chicken-and-egg problem. - Why are not similar minimum participation requirements placed on other parts of ICANN? 5. The attempt to remove A-L members as "statutory members" appears as nothing less than an attempt to eliminate the concept of "accountability" from ICANN. California law is not irrational and is far from the blank check for unwarranted derivative actions that the report suggests it might be. 6. Removal of direct voting from the at-large is a pretext to remove statutory rights from the memberships. |
| Karl Auerbach Costs (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:45:18 PM, #463) 1. At-large membership *IS NOT* a substitute for full parity access to SO's. Yet, this report appears as if it is being used to justify the exclusion of those who would be A-L members also having a full role in the SOs. 2. For membership outreach - use the contacts found in the whois database. Certainly those who pay for DNS names and IP addresses have a direct interest. 3. A large part of the cost of the at-large comes from a belief that individuals are often electronic fabrications or otherwise misrepresent their credentials. This may be true. But it is also true of corporations and associations. For example, INEG. If the at-large is to bear costs based on a mis-trust of its members, it is equally valid that in other parts of ICANN, corporations should be required to demonstrate their identity and people acting as their representatives ought to be required to prove the authenticity of their appointments. |
| Srikanth Narra (IDNO) Out reach. (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:40:54 PM, #462) We should request all the registers to give our a brochure or information booklet of some sort that tells the domain name registerents what the whole internet goverance/ICANN, etc is all about. It will create enough awareness and facilitate participation of interested members. |
| Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Too narrow a view of its role. (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:36:33 PM, #461) If the Internet only affected those who currently use it, I'd agree with the staff's recommendation an organization like ISOC be the place to recruit ICANN's At Large members. However, the net has already become an integral part of society, having a significant impact on the operation of all businesses, institutions, governments, and individuals. Today, we have a choice; we can maintain a narrow focus and continue to treat the activities of ICANN as merely "technical". Or we can acknowledge that, like the book, newspaper, telephone, radio, TV and computer the net is making an imprint on everyone's life, and we need to begin involving a wider public in its governance. Let's not leave it to the next generation to clean up our mess. Let's acknowledge the net's wide impact and set reasonable policies on its governance. And let's get everyone we can into the process. |
| Ellen Rony (Domain Name Handbook) (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:32:28 PM, #460) Would the ICANN board please address these questions: 1. What supports the staff's recommendation that a 5,000-person membership is attainable in order to hold elections? Can this be used to justify delays in replacing the Interim board with elected members? 2. Why should define its membership so as to be immune to a derivative action? 3. Isn't it possible that partnerships with existing Internet-related organizations to build membership builds opportunity for capture by the larger, better funded and organized groups? Won't ICANN risk accusations of bias and selectivity by reaching out only to the best known ones? 4. What efforts will be made to reach out to the known stakeholders--registrants, respondents to NOI, Green Paper and related mailing lists? |
| Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Shallow Pool (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:27:02 PM, #458) The Internet's become omnipresent and we need to decide how best to involve those not currently intimate in its operation with its governance. ICANN's staff recommendation that we look to ISOC as the key provider of At Large members seems a bit too "quick and dirty" for me. I'll try a parallel to underscore my objection: Why not limit voting for public office holders to government employees - for indeed, it is they who are most immediately affected by government actions. We ordinary citizens are tangentially involved with only a small fraction of its rules and regulations. Most have no impact on us whatsoever. But our government employees spend their lives on these narrow but important issues. Their very livelihood depends on the proper and continued operation of the government, so why not put it into their hands? |
| Karl Auerbach (Independent Review, 8/25/99 3:17:08 PM, #457) Yes,I do disagree |
| Thomas Lowenhaupt (The Communisphere Project) Broaden the Membership Pool (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 3:15:46 PM, #456) I propose a four pronged recruitment effort: 1. NSI and the testbed registrars are established organizations with direct and regular contact with domain name holders and should provide access to their customer lists as part of the membership drive. 2. ICANN's financial sponsors should be persuaded to contribute their contact/employee lists as well as to make contributions to an "At Large Membership Development Fund" aimed at furthering the Internet's democratic development. 3. One hundred leading consumer groups should be contacted and encouraged to approach their memberships about participating in the ICANN At Large election. 4. Existing internet-related membership organizations should be contacted for prospective members but "automatic membership" should not be provided to anyone. |
| Karl Auerbach (Independent Review, 8/25/99 3:12:23 PM, #455) Q1: Why should the body being reviewed, i.e. the board approve the review panel? (Answer: it should not.) Q2: The supporting organizations should not be the source of IRP nominations -- the SO's are not widely representative of the internet community, only of "interests". The nominations should come from the at-large. |
| Eric Menge (U.S. Small Business Administration) Principle 21 (Independent Review, 8/25/99 3:01:42 PM, #453) The Office of Advocacy of the United States Small Business commends the Advisory Committee for Independent Review on its thorough work and supports the a vast majority of the principles recommended. However, in response to Principle 21, Advocacy recommends that IRP be given the power to stay a Board action. The IRP's stay then can be overruled by an affirmative vote of a supra-majority (6 members) of the ICANN board. The 30-day time period would be sufficient for the Board to respond to an IRP stay. Advocacy does have one other question in response to the Final Report. Is there a procedure for removing an IRP member for malfeasance? It may be necessary at some point in the future to have such a procedure in place. Thanks you for consideration of these issues. |
| Mikki Barry (DNRC) director's terms (Director Terms, 8/25/99 2:28:42 PM, #450) Since this was supposed to be an Interim Board, formed solely to implement creation of a membership and election of the Initial Board, there should be NO further extension of director's terms. |
| Dave Crocker (Brandenburg Consulting) Representing individuals / IDNO as representative (DNSO Report, 8/25/99 1:38:08 PM, #448) 1/2 of the ICANN board comes from the GA and is based on "individuals". We need to focus on underlying issues rather than the details of form and labels. The fact that those selected by the GA are not labeled explicitly to be representing individuals does not change the fact the body from which they are drawn comprise individuals and no other discernible constituency. IDNO has a problematic history, focusing on criticism, not constructive content. Worse is that it has repeatedly put chilling pressure on those with opinions that diverged from IDNO leadership. Membership requires stating adherence to their charter; the tone is equivalent to a "loyalty oath." IDNO has yet to put forward constructive suggestions, for positive actions to be taken now or in the future, with respect to the *CONTENT* of DNSO work. Their statements about membership and real work seem to rest on FIRST being recognized by by ICANN, and only THEN figuring out the positions. |
| Eric Menge (US Small Business Administration) At Large Membership (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 1:09:52 PM, #447) Advocacy believes that membership criteria contained in Recommendation III.1 must be carefully considered because of the impact it will have in determining membership. Advocacy agrees with staff’s recommendations on the first four criteria presented, but the requirement to support the cost of ICANN membership could create a barrier to participation for representatives from individuals and small businesses. If a membership fee is to be accessed, Advocacy urges ICANN to keep the fee low or to provide a waiver process for either the entire fee or a part of the fee. In response to Recommendation IV.2, Advocacy offers its assistance to the ICANN staff in its efforts to attract membership. Advocacy has extensive contacts with individual small businesses and with small businesses associations and could facilitate ICANN’s outreach efforts. |
| Eric Menge (US Small Business Administration) At Large Membership (At Large Membership, 8/25/99 1:09:34 PM, #446) The Office of Advocacy of the United States Small Business Administration supports most of the recommendations in the Staff’s Report on ICANN At-Large Membership. For full discussion of the Office of Advocacy and the role of small business on the Internet, please see our comments filed in response to the DNSO WG-A’s Final Report to the ICANN Board, filed with ICANN on August 25, 1999. Advocacy would like to address directly two of the proposals contained in the staff report. |
| Bret Fausett (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP) Individuals (DNSO Report, 8/25/99 1:01:07 PM, #445) (My second comment, so you don't have to read it, but wanted to get it into the notes) If the exclusion of individuals from the NCDNHC is based on the (unduly optimistic) belief that the IDNO will be recognized, shouldn't individual domain name holders be allowed to participate there and in other constituencies until a separate IDNO is recognized? |
| Dennis Schaefer (Cyberspace Association) (Welcome, 8/25/99 12:54:08 PM, #444) I came into this issue earlier this year when my teenage son was beset at school by lawyers from a well-known bleach company because they wanted his domain name. They did so because the dispute process the company used basically assumed that business' interest were stronger than individuals. ICANN now is adopting this same assumption. Individuals have no "interest" in domain names according to the Names Council. ICANN's draft dispute process characterizes my son's domain name as a "parasitical and predatory" practice. To me, ICANN has ample evidence that it is large busineses that are devouring individual's property, but is working hard to keep them individuals out. I, as a parent, and as an Internet user, have no place to look to, no resource, for dealing with this except to the institution that ICANN is supposed to be. I am very disappointed that ICANN refuses to recognize how vital a role this is. Dennis Schaefer USA |
| Michael Froomkin (UM School of Law) IDNO (Public Comment, 8/25/99 12:53:43 PM, #443) Re E.Dyson's question about membership numbers: other constitutencies have small #s of members; this concern is met often by ""virtual" representatioin by e.g. people from trade associations. I don't share this concern, but would the concern be met by having IDNO members from groups like EFF? consumer groups? |
| Dinesh Nair (IDNO) Individual Domain Name Owners (DNSO Report, 8/25/99 12:52:09 PM, #442) Other than Ms Dyson, the rest of the ICANN Board seem rather silent on this issue of th IDNO. Can we publicly hear their views on the inclusion of IDNO as a constituency ? |
| Mark Langston IDNO are stakeholders (Public Comment, 8/25/99 12:50:25 PM, #441) Individual Domain Name Holders are stakeholders in the DNSO, as much as any other member of any other constituency. As such, it is unfair to attempt to lump them in with the At-Large membership. Furthermore, IDNOs share a common interest, in much the same way the NCDNHs do, or the IPC members do. They may have other affiliations as well, but they have decided that it is their interest in the system as *individuals* which is most important. As such, individual domain name holders should have their own constituency. To refuse them this constituency dilutes their voice to the point of meaninglessness. |
| Bret Fausett (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP) NCDNHC (DNSO Report, 8/25/99 12:41:45 PM, #440) What is the justification for excluding individual domain name holders who use their domain for non-commercial purposes from the proposed NCDNHC? |
| Richard Lindsay (interQ Inc.) Geographic representation (DNSO Report, 8/25/99 12:11:06 PM, #439) I believe that it would not be a terrible thing if a constituency only had 2 seats, because for the moment they could not find 3 separate regional representatives. While I understand this is not "the best person for the job" all the time, but this geographic representation is very important from the Japanese resident who is not Japanese |
| Richard Lindsay (interQ Inc.) IDNO (DNSO Report, 8/25/99 11:56:19 AM, #437) While if I hear the arguement long enough, I find myself being swayed; when the further question of "individual constituencies" for the ASO, or PSO is raised, I come back to the same conclusion that there are other venues for individuals to be heard. There is the at large membership, there is the GA of the DNSO, and there are the Working Groups, at least as far as the DNSO goes. I think the fear is that the individuals will be left out, perhaps these could be assuaged by a more robust and active MAC and some progress with regard to the at large ICANN board members. |
| Bret Fausett (Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP) Individuals (DNSO Report, 8/25/99 11:56:13 AM, #436) In Singapore, the Board resolved that "Individual domain name holders should be able to participate in constituencies for which they qualify." How do you reconcile that statement with the constitution of the constituencies provisionally recognized to date, each of which exclude individuals? Is the current deficiency something that will be addressed prior to permanent recognition of DNSO constituencies? |
| Mikki Barry (DNRC) individual constituency (DNSO Report, 8/25/99 11:55:35 AM, #435) Given that individuals are the single largest group of Internet users, it is remarkable that substantive issues that speak directly to the rights of domain name holders are being resolved with neither individuals, nor non commercial organicational users being represented. The very idea that the individual consituency is being questioned sends a very strong message to the general public that they are "not welcomed" at the ICANN table. |
| Mikki Barry (DNRC) dispute resolution policy (Dispute Resolution Policy, 8/25/99 11:07:34 AM, #434) Individual and non-profit domain name holders are impacted in a significant and negative manner. 1) There has been no consensus of the Internet community that a uniform dispute resolution policy is workable or even desirable. 2) The definition of "bad faith" in ICANN’s dispute policies is flawed and should be revisited. There are still many cases under this definition, where an innocent domain name holder operating legitimately can be charged with being a "cybersquatter" and/or having registered the domain name in "bad faith" triggering this dispute policy. As an example, "bad faith" charges may be triggered by something as innocent as a domain name holder’s wish to avoid litigation costs by settling a claim. 3) Again, the intellectual property community is asking for greater rights and protections on the Internet than they receive in any other medium. |
| Dennis Schaefer (Cyberspace Association) (Welcome, 8/25/99 9:59:16 AM, #430) Quisiera saber si la junta de directores se decidio conscientemente que abrocharia la adopcion (o no-adopcion) del proceso de resolucion de disputas sin haber reconocido todos los grupos constituyentes. O es que esto sencillamente se paso sin que nadie lo planeaba? Si fue el primero, es que no habia nadie en la junta opuesta? Quien? No les parece importante tener una votacion amplia y equilibrada, con representacion de todos los grupos afectados, antes de considerar cualquiera recomendacion del consilio de nombres? (Mis gracias a nuestros amables hospederos chilenos por acordarnos que el ingles no es el unico idioma ni en el Internet ni en los E.U.) Dennis Schaefer |
(61 messages total)
For additional technical information, please contact:
All times are Santiago (GMT -5)Ben Edelman and
John Wilbanks
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School