[Random-bits] Damien Cave: Why Netizens can't learn to stop worrying and love ICANN.

[James Love]

This is Damien Cave's ICANN article from the online New Republic.  It is
mostly about how, in his opinion, people are silly to worry about the
power ICANN has over the DNS and IP numbers.  Apparently this could
never lead to any real issues, as he sees things.  As someone who has
worked for non-profit organizations for years, I was surprised Damien
was so impressed with the idea that ICANN has, gasp, bylaws -- make
that, "strick bylaws." He doesn't mention that thoese bylaws are changed
frequently, certainly at every ICANN board meeting that I have attended,
or that the "non binding" UDRP process is out of control on important
trademark issues, or that there are any bona fide free speech concerns
when (some) UDRP panels decide that trademark owners should have
exclusive rights to use company or product names in domain names, or
that future policies on this or a hundred other issues might be
important enough to worry about who makes the decisions.  Or that the
President of ICANN and several board members have indicated that are
considering eliminating the "at large" membership's right to elect any
board members (see below), and indeed, that the bylaws were changed in
Yokohama to require the board to approve any future elections, and that
the whole decisions to even have an election was basically forced on
ICANN by the US Department of Commerce, which in turn was pressured by
ICANN's critics, and motivated also by ICANN proposal to levy a $1 fee
on every domain.  Nor is there any mention of current proposals to place
"user fees" on IP numbers, or various proposals by music and movie
industry advocates to have ICANN play a larger role in enforcing
copyrights, including, for example, the policy adopted recently making
it illegal to register a domain name anonymously, regardless of how the
domain is used.   Jamie


http://magazines.enews.com/online/cave092600.html
 

Why Netizens can't learn to stop worrying and love ICANN.
Freaked Geeks 

By DAMIEN CAVE
Online only
Post date: 09.26.00 

  [snip]

What ICANNwatch, and, by the looks of it, most of the people who
registered to vote, seem not to realize is that it's just ICANN. The
non-profit has nine full-time employees. It operates under strict bylaws
that prevent it from getting involved with most of the Net's hot-button
issues, such as kicking child pornographers off the Web or protecting
privacy. Its authority over domain-name contracts--such as those between
you and the registrar of your personal domain-name--only allows it to
enforce decisions made by outside judges or arbitrators. 

And while it's true that ICANN has a process for guiding disputes into
arbitration, the uniform domain-name dispute-resolution policy,) it's
far from binding. If Verizon used the UDRP to enter arbitration and try
to take the domain name "Verizonreallysucks.com" away from the current
owner, 2600 Magazine, and lost, the cellular company could simply sue in
a federal or international court to get its way. 

  [snip]


http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#II

Then, there is this, from the current version of the bylaws:

-- Section 5. Study of "At Large" Membership

   Beginning immediately following the conclusion of the Annual Meeting
of the Corporation in 2000, the Corporation shall initiate a
comprehensive study of the concept, structure and processes relating to
an "At Large" membership for the Corporation. The study shall be
structured so as to allow and encourage the participation of
organizations worldwide, and shall be a "clean sheet" study meaning that
previous decisions and conclusions regarding an "At Large" membership
will be informative but not determinative,  and that the study will
start with no preconceptions as to a preferred outcome. The study shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following issues, taking
into account the limited technical and administrative responsibilities
of ICANN:

      Whether the ICANN Board should include "At Large" Directors;

       If so, how many such Directors there should be;

       How any such "At Large" Directors should be selected, including
consideration of at least the following options: selection by an "At
Large" membership; appointment by the existing Board;

       selection or appointment by some other entity or entities; and
any combination of those options;

       If selection by an "At Large" membership is to be used, the
processes and procedures by which that selection will take place; and

       What the appropriate structure, role and functions of an "At
Large" membership should be.

The Board shall establish, by the Annual Meeting in 2000, a process and
structure for the study that will enable it to meet the following
deadlines:

       a. The results of the study should be presented to the Board no
later than the second quarterly meeting of the Corporation in 2001;

       b. The Board shall review the study, and propose for public
comment whatever actions it deems appropriate as a result of the study,
on a schedule that would permit the Board to take final action on the
study no later than the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in 2001; and

       c. Any actions taken by the Board as a result of the study that
require the selection of any "At Large" Directors should be implemented
on a schedule that will allow any new "At Large" Directors to be seated
no later than the conclusion of the Annual Meeting of the Corporation in
2002.


---------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176
love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org