NCC DNSO elections - Question 5

Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 17:58:19 -0400
From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
To: YJ Park <yjpark@myEpark.com>
CC: pdeblanc@usvi.net, rweikers@home.com,
 	Jonathan Cohen <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>,
 	ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [5] NCC Q&A Session with Candidates for DNSO Board


YJ Park wrote:
> 
> Dear DNSO Board Candidates and NCC members,
> 
> This is going to be the last challenge.:-)
> Taking advantage of this, I hope you can share your own views
> in a free manner which couldn't be done appropriately with NCC.
> 
> Firstly, what values should be protected in the Cyber-Governance
> in implementing it through ICANN at this moment?

   Before ICANN, there was a sense that the Internet was free and that
no one could control it.  When ICANN was created. all of a sudden people
began to realize how vulnerable the whole thing was to control over the
DNS and the IP numbers, and it looked all to easy to control.  I think
this is very important, and there needs to be a rethinking about how the
Internet decisions are made.  

  ICANN was set up to give big corporations control over the Internet. 
Every effort at making the whole thing more democratic has been
difficult.  The current leadership of ICANN doesn't appreciate or care
how much this is resented by the broader public.  I think the at large
elections will be interesting, for that reason.  

   Also, I think the whole issue of conflicts of interest have not been
addressed.  I was never asked at any stage if I had conflicts of
interest in running for the board, and when one looks at the DNSO, it
seems to be based upon the notion that conflicts of interest are (a) ok,
and (b) a source of more votes on the DNSO.  People without any
conflicts at all, regular users, have zero votes on the DNSO.  Big
companies often participate in several different DNSO constituencies,
depending upon how many ways they can define "stakeholder."  

   None of this is too important if ICANN's mission is limited in a
meaningful way, as it should.  The interesting question is where is
ICANN headed?  Will it be an ever more boring technical organization? 
(a good outcome, IMO).  Or will it become a magnet for interesting new
policy agendas, that are drawn by its power over the DNS and IP numbers?

> According to the observations, NCC has been somewhat regarded as
> trouble-maker or unhealthy constituency which has been dominated by
> its own agenda which is somewhat different from ICANN's perspective
> rather than by cooperational efforts with ICANN in the DNSO therefore
> it is noticed that NCC has encountered "INSULATION" situation.
> Second, what do you think of this specific observation and NCC in general?

   I think the NCC has been influential in moving ICANN in the right
direction.   Which constituency has pushed for (a) more transparency,
(b) user (and free speech) rights in trademark policy (c) at large
direct elections of ICANN board members (d) expansions of the TLD space
and (e) civil society TLDs?  The NCC has a troublemaker in the best
sense of the word.  


> 
> Thirdly, do you have any recomendation which will help NCC reborn
> as the most efficient constituency in the DNSO?

 1.  Have an elected Chair or secretary, like the registers.  
 2.  Create an announce only list.
 3.  Get control over the NCC web page.
 4.  Get a way to force votes on resolutions, and formally adopt them. 
 

> 
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> Yours Sincerely,
> 
> YJ Park

-- 
James Love  mailto:love@cptech.org http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176