Pawlo vs Bildt On The Future Of ICANN 4
I state in my column:
"It should be noted that what we discuss is merely a regulation of new top-level domain names. In case ICANN or another domain name regulator should have a wider scope of power and decide upon other technical measures, ICANN needs to get such a mandate."
(---)
"Bildt is speaking of the leadership over the Internet and Pontus Forsstrom is speaking of the "power over the Internet. I think such metaphors lead the reader in the wrong direction. The Internet is not regulated top-down in the way that Bildt and Forsstrom suggests. The force of the Internet and the success of the Internet are depending upon the protocols. The protocols are often developed in the working groups of the IETF, but any protocol might as well be developed in a boy's room in his parents' house at Lidingo (Mikael's note: Lidingo is a suburb to Stockholm, Sweden) as well as in the most secret corridors of Microsoft. The power over the Internet is distributed."
(---)
"Bildt is convinced that ICANN will remain as a domain name regulator. Bildt suggests in his report a possibility to let the domain name holders elect the board members of ICANN. In the Bildt suggestion every domain name holder get one vote in the global election to the ICANN board."
(---)
"The only regulation that I consider sound is a global regulation based on the participation of nations. The work of ICANN affects mostly those who still have not found their way out on the Internet. To make domain name ownership a condition for voting rights is therefore not appropriate. Current domain name holders should be most interested in decreasing the amount of new top-level domain names. New top-level domain names will lead to inflation in the legal and economic rights of the domain name holder.
A new top-level domain name can lead to multiple registration of the same domain names and defamation and degeneration. A "good" domain name will be less worth if it's available under multiple top-level domain names.
However, it will benefit society if the name space is widened, while it will lead to more competition and innovation.
Hence, I find it more suitable to make as many nations as possible, offline or online, participate in ICANN or an organisation replacing ICANN. It can be achieved through the United Nations or a similar body."
(---)
"The connection between ownership and voting rights was a la mode in Europe at the mid 19th Century, but as an instrument for democracy in the 21th Century I consider the concept dusty and obsolete."
(---)
"I am afraid of the politician Carl Bildt. If Bildt's suggestion is approved and used, we will create a domain name regulator that lacks severely when it comes to representation. Only the landowners will get to vote. I am also afraid that Icann and its investigator Carl Bildt consider a widened ICANN with a broadened scope and a new government for the Internet."
Mr Bildt replies:
"It is good if we get more debates on the ICANN issues in Sweden. We brag about being best in the world on the Internet, but we are silent as mice (idiomatic expression, Mikael's note) when it comes to these issues. Crap."
(---)
"Mikael Pawlo seems to have two points. First, he wants to keep the decentralised decision making process on the Internet. Second, he wants to have some UN like organisation to make decisions, in practice probably the International Telecommunications Union, ITU."
(---)
"However, you can't have both."
(---)
"ICANN is certainly no government of the Internet and can not be such a body. The scope of ICANN is technical. But with the Internet as the most important infrastructure those issues will be important."
(---)
"Therefore I have a hard time to appreciate his (Mikael Pawlo's) suggestion as a real alternative."
Read my column (in Swedish).
Read Mr Bildts reply (in Swedish).
The column and the reply was published by the Swedish branch of the International Data Group. Please be advised that the translations are unofficial translations and that Mr Bildt may or may not agree with me on the paragraphs choosen to be translated."
Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
What's he got against Ice CreaM?
ICANN At-Large Membership Study Committee (Score:1)
Reading the full At-Large study [atlargestudy.org] was mildly interesting. Upon starting to read the document, I felt irate that they were thinking about axing all of the At-Large Directors, but with further reading, some of their points started to make sense. I found the most interesting (and concrete) section to be the Membership Registration/Election Process [atlargestudy.org]. This section details how many people attempted to register, how many actually voted, and what the cost per vote for ICANN was. The only bullet I have problems with is:
This bullet is not preceeded by any information telling what three countries they are referring too.The best points raised were those in which they feared there was some ballot-stuffing going on. Multiple registrations to the same household or IP(legimiate, multiple family or roomates may have registered), and multi-lingual problems.
So now they want to move to a membership scheme in which only domain name holders can be At-Large members, and charge a fee for the membership. Mpawlo stated above:
But I don't agree. ICANN does not affect those who are unwired the most - it is the opposite! Would the way Norway decide to enforce it's driving laws affect a citizen of Australia? I think not. ICANN is there to regulate the street names, and to standardize the pavement. The problems arise when two people want to live at the same address, or when one person would like to carve a river across the land, so they may move around by boat, while another wants to pave it, so they can move by automobile.I believe ICANN's problem boils down to "No taxation without representation". They are trying to be democratic (Yay!) about it, but without some way to validate just who its' representing, they are having logistical problems. However, I don't belive that one must own a house to have a say in where the river or road is placed.
I do agree with mpawlo about those which already have registered domain names wouldn't want other TLDs added, but I don't believe that is just because they are being stingy. Rather, it is because of the way the TLDs of today have been run. .Com, .Net and .Org have no type of hierarchy associated with them, so even though there may be many Main Streets in cities across the country, they are all localized. With the TLDs as they are now (minus the .cc codes) there is no type of hierarchy saying which main street you are looking at! With new TLDs now you can distinguish between Main Street(.com), Anytown, Canada and Main Street(.info), Anytown, USA. With the flat structure of the TLDs today, I don't believe there is anyway to get more unique street names without adding more .TLDs with or without the support of current DN Holders.
Regards,
-Tammie
PS. I tried to be non-country specific, but I am an American, and we all know how dumb they can be :).
Re:Report online? (Score:1)
http://www.atlargestudy.org/final_report.shtml [atlargestudy.org]
If you don't have time reading the report, read the Wired summary of the report [wired.com]:
"On Monday, a committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), said it wants to adopt a proposal allowing directors to be elected by members of the public who own Internet domains."
Newsbytes take on the report: [newsbytes.com]
"It's a mistake to push these issues entirely down to Ghana," Bildt said, referring to ICANN's next scheduled meeting, which is set to take place in Ghana, Africa next March."
Regards
Mikael