INEGroup's Reaction/Response to: Re: Nader/CPT: A framework for ICANN and DNS Management, Initial Proposals

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

All,



  For ICANN's review...

James, Ralph and all,

  We here at INEGroup appreciate you posting this and have had a
brief time to review your suggestions.  For the most part, we are
in agreement with what you suggest.  I have some additional
comments that our members thought I should suggest to some
of your points.  We are hopeful that the ICANN (Initial?) Interim
Board and the NTIA will take head to your suggestions and our
additional comments as well, but are not very expectant that
they will...
(See below your suggesting points).

James Love wrote:

> INFO-POLICY-NOTES
> List management at http://www.cptech.org/lists.html
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The following are proposals presented by Ralph Nader to "Governing
> the Commons: The Future of Global Internet Administration," a
> conference organized by Computer Professionals for Social
> Responsibility, September 24-25, 1999, in Alexandria, Virginia.
>
>             A framework for ICANN and DNS Management
>
>                         Initial Proposals
>                        (comments welcome)
>
>                           version 1.02
>
>                        September 25, 1999*
>
> 1.   ICANN's authority should be based upon a multilateral
>      government charter. That Charter should define and limit
>      ICANN's authority.

   We are essentially in agreement here.  However this charter should
also pass muster of the Stakeholders within those respected countries.

>
>
> 2.   The charter should be based upon a limited purpose sui
>      generis agreement among countries that express interest in
>      working together, and that agree that ICANN's role should be
>      limited to tasks essential to maintaining an efficient and
>      reliable DNS management, and that ICANN will not be used as
>      an instrument to promote policies relating to conduct or
>      content on the Internet. (Additional multilateral
>      institutions may be desired to address electronic commerce
>      issues, but ICANN itself should not become the foundation
>      for a vast Internet governance institution. See
>      http://www.cptech.org/ecom/cpt-wcpo.html)

  Agreed in total here.

>
>
> 3.   ICANN should not use its power over domain registration
>      policy to exclude persons from the use of a domain on issues
>      that are not germane to managing the DNS system of mapping
>      IP addresses into domain names. The right to have a domain
>      on the Internet should be considered the same as the right
>      to have a street address, a telephone number or a person's
>      name.

  Agreed in part.  It should be added that any registrar or registry
should be able to operate in conjunction without overly restrictive
registration of Domain Names based on policies that ICANN itself
sets.  Rather those registration requirements should be determined
by the registrar or registry itself.  All registry and registrar should
be available by a central Whois database and application.  No
information regarding a registrant should be released without
the expressed written permission of that registrant in advance.

>
>
> 4.   ICANN should identify a membership and elect its board of
>      directors from its membership before it makes additional
>      policy decisions (in those areas appropriate for action by
>      ICANN).

  Agreed.  And any and all policy decisions must be ratified by that
membership before enactment.  Such ratification should be by
simple majority vote of the membership.

>
>
> 5.   Membership should be open to anyone who uses the Internet.
>      There should be no fee associated with membership or voting
>      rights.

  Agreed.

>
>
> 6.   The records of ICANN should be open to the public. The
>      public should have rights to documents as, similiar to
>      rights provided in the US Freedom of Information Act.

  This should be made a simple as possible, or provided in full
through FTP interface or by request within 48 hours by E-Mail
request form any member.

>
>
> 7.   The meetings of ICANN should be open to the public.

  Agreed.  Also any meetings should also be broadcast over
Internet video conferencing and other electronic means without
fail.  All minuets should be published within 24 hours of the
completion of those meetings.

>
>
> 8.   The public should be given an annual opportunity to review
>      and comment on the ICANN budget.

  Agreed as well.  In addition this should be made available upon
request via E-Mail or snail mail within 24 hours of time of request
in the case of E-Mail request.

>
>
> 9.   The Budget of ICANN should be subject to review by the
>      countries that provide the ICANN charter. Fees associated
>      with domain registration should only be spent on activities
>      essential to the management of the DNS system.

  Agreed.  In addition the ICANN should not ever collect any form
of tax and/or fee for these services without the consent and
ratification of the membership by majority vote.

>
>
> 10.  National governments should be permitted to exercise
>      discretion over policies relating to the use of country top
>      level domains (.fr, .uk, .us, etc).

  Agreed.  This discretion should be nearly unlimited except or
unless there is a direct impact identified that could disrupt to
the normal operation of the DNS that would be significant or
otherwise catastrophic so as to effectively disrupt service
or resolution of Domain's already in existence.

>
>
> 11.  For generic top level domains (.com, .org, .net, and new
>      gTLDs), the domain space should be declared a public
>      resource. The registrar or registries perform services on
>      behalf of the users of the domains, and will not own the
>      domain space. It should be possible to replace firms engaged
>      in registration services and DNS management, without risking
>      the stability of the Internet.

  Agreed. And as in the White Paper andy and all "INterested Parties"
may engage without severe impeedment be that impeedment be
technical or financial in nature.  Privately owned and operated TLDs
should be allowed as long as they are available to anyone that wishes
to register a Domain Name in that Name space.

>
>
> 12.  On matters of public interest (in the narrow areas where
>      ICANN will operate), such as policies regarding the use of
>      trademarks or the privacy of domain registration
>      information, ICANN should make recommendations to the sui
>      generis multinational body created to manage ICANN, and the
>      multinational body should accept, reject or modify the
>      recommendations, after giving the public a fully adequate
>      opportunity to review and comment on the proposals.

  This must also be ratified by majority vote by the ICANN membership
by simple majority vote before enactment as a means of oversight.

>
>
> 13.  On the issue of trademarks, the Charter should explicitly
>      protect the public's rights to parody, criticism and free
>      speech. For example, domain names like GM-sucks.com, which
>      would not be confused with GM.com, should be permitted.

  Agreed.


 Regards,


--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208