Dennis Schaefer
toshimaru ogura
Myungkoo Kang
Andrew Clement
Alessandro Lofaro
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales (Panama)
Kilnam Chon (Korea)
Nii Quaynor (Ghana)
Craig McTaggart (Switzerland)
Don Mitchell (USA)
Steve Eskow (USA)
Franck Biancheri (France)
Adam Peake (Japan)
Andrew Clement (Canada)
Jamie Love (USA)
Michel J. Menou (United Kingdom)
Mark Perkins (New Caledonia, South Pacific)
 

The statement should acknowledge that ICANN's exclusion of individuals
and small businesses has caused power within the organization to become
centered in  large multinational businesses.  The machinations used by
the DNSO to purge individuals from Working Groups, and to diminish
their voting power within the General Assembly have been highly
successful.

It is appropriate at this point to ask the US Department of Commerce to
initiate an inquiry into whether ICANN has already been captured by
business -- in violation of the White Paper and MoU --  and is now
freely operating as a global trade association.
###

Japanese ICANN election situation is very critical. JPNIC, the
organization of ccTLD in Japan has two voluntary groups about
ICANN. One is the Japan ICANN Forum. The Forum promotes the campaign
for register of ICANN election in order to get a seat of the board for
only Japanese interest not for Asian interest. The web of the Forum
insists on the importance of the board member for national interest.

Also, yahoo Japan begins a campaign for ICANN election. Its special
web page stir up to get a board member for "Japanese". 

Several weeks ago, Japanese resister number is only 400. But now the
number is about 5000. The reason of the increment seems a  result of  top-down
register action by Japanese big companies and Japanese government.

Last Monday, at the conference about ICANN organized by the
Internet Governance Kenkyuukai in JPNIC, Higashida, a vice-director of
JPNIC said that the Forum organizes Big companies and Government
organizations in order to promote resister of ICANN election. Though
several participants at the conference criticized such top-down system
of gathering resister members that is inconsistent with bottom-up
idea, Higashida emphasized the necessity of the top-down system for the
election.

I think above Japanese situation has a very dangerous ethnocentric
character. We need to block such old fashioned nation-state based power
politics. I guess the same situation  will be more stimulated during
this July.

So, I propose to revise the Yokohama Statement in order not to stimulate
such ethnocentrism or nationalism.

-----------------
Umbrella organizations of ICANN have not to campaign for their own
interest except to link the register page on ICANN and the precise
translation of the ICANN election.

We do not vote the candidate who represents specific national, ethnic,
and market interest. Also we do not vote the candidate who is
recommended by specific governments, national interest groups and some
other groups against democratic rights in the Internet.
###

Comments on the Draft Yokohama Statement

By 
Myung-koo Kang 
Chair, Seoul Net Forum

Support the basic principles of the draft, I would like to make some comments on it. 

1. In the beginning part of the statement, it will be appropriate if there are some remarks on a 
kind of "global civil society." The Internet should be a tool and instrument to expand the 
global civil society(or societies). I think this kind of statement is crucial if we agree that 
the recent trend of globalization facilitated by the expansion of the Internet mainly means the 
globalization of the market. I hope the draft will be better if global civil society is one of 
the guiding values.
2. If the purpose of this statement is to make ICANN democratic, I think the statement should 
have a critique of the speed of its decision-making process. The whole process should be slow 
down. It will be great if the statement demands putting off the given deadlines and reset the 
time frame and scheduling of the ICANN formation. I believe that due to the fast speed of the 
decisions last two or three years the non-commercial and non-English speaking communities have 
been puzzled and became look-only-members in front of the computer screen.
3. The last item of the issue 1(ICANN must be representative) proposes new constituencies. I 
strongly agree to it. But it seems to me that the developing countries constituency may exclude 
their participating in other major (?) constituencies. Some people might say you could go 
to "the developing."  Secondly, it may make confusion because some constituencies have already 
used a framework of Regional representations like Asia Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. 
4. The statement 4 refers to the European Convention. Why not the Universal Declaration?
5. The statement 5 on the ICANN's role or function. So far I have agreed to such a position that 
it hast to deal with only technical matters. Recently I begin to doubt whether it is possible to 
separate technical and non-technical functions. For example the generation of new gTLDs cannot 
be a just technical management. I understand why civil activist groups have claimed that. I am 
questioning here that the term "technical" can mask us the real politics in /between market 
forces and global political powers. I think that the decisions done by US department of commerce 
and IANA about ICANN are not technical at all. Those decisions cannot be protected by saying 
that they are not ICANN's decisions. This is why I am suggesting that global civil society 
should discuss this issue from the beginning again. 
###

To expand on two of Craig McTaggart's excellent points:

> >4. Intellectual property rights are not privileged over other rights.

Communications rights more broadly are indeed important to 
emphasize.  A good articulation of them in the international arena 
is found in the People's Communication Charter. see: 
http://www.waag.org/pcc/index.phtml?language=en

Besides the right of freedom expression (Article 2), it lists among 
its 18 Articles several rights that are particularly relevant for the 
ICANN process: Access (3); Independence (4); Diversity of 
languages (8); Cultural identity (9); Participation in policy-making 
(10); Cyberspace (12); Privacy (13) and Accountability (17).

Further, it is based on a wide variety of international treaties and 
conventions.  There is a valuable history to draw upon here. Thus 
referring to the PCC will help link the discussion of the Yokohama 
Statement and the ICANN debate to the longstanding international 
discussion of democratic communications rights. This linkage is so 
far not apparent in the formulation of the Statement or the 
organizational support for it. 

> >6. The domain name space is not an exclusively public 
resource.

As a variation on Craig's suggestion, I propose: "The Internet's 
technical infrastructure [or domain name space] is a globally-
shared PUBLIC GOOD with public and private functions." 

I use 'public good' rather than 'public resource' here to avoid some 
of the ambiguities around the word public that others have raised. It 
has a relatively clear meaning in economic terms that resists (or at 
least should) privatization initiatives while leaving open the 
particular form of public control. Hopefully it does help set a useful 
frame for tackling the deeper issues of global internet governance.
###

   since you invite to make comments, I have a couple I'd like to make,
specifically on the points 4, 6, 2 and 9. Should my comments not be clear,
please tell me and I shall try to make them clearer.
    On the point 4, the comment is only on the last phrase: the constitution
of such a domain would not avoid the need of going to court or the danger of
ICANN trying to take over the role of the courts deciding who has right to
use a domain name.
    On point 6, I understand the concerns expressed in view of the attitude
of certain governments toward their citizens, but the domain name space is
indeed a public resource.This since public resource as a concept goes back
to the concept of "res publica" (from which "republic") - something
belonging to each and everybody. This by itself is a strong reason why
international entities  should be the actors playing on it - aside from what
can happen and be the feeling in USA and some non democratic regimes,
governements are there even to keep the balance of interest between the
various parts of the society, while is right and obligations of the citizens
to verify that their governments respect this. Rather than asking the states
not to be involved, would IMO be better to make sure that control over such
a resource goes to something like ONU - peacekeeping missions can be blocked
by certain countries because they require direct resources, while this kind
of things could more easily be managed (if they were managed directly and
not through resolutions of the Security council, of course). From a more
practical point of view, I'd like to underline how in the actual situation
or the one depicted (with states having no or limited voice) everything goes
back to direct influence power - and economic interests tend be more
powerful (often the most effective way for NGOs to reach results on long
term and large scale is to show government what "the people" want and will
vote for, while economic interests can resort to other less moral means). If
national governements or international organisations made by them are
involved, they can be more easily forced to put in governing bodies a voice
for representatives of society at large, while economic interests don't have
any obligation on this sense.
      On point 2, IMO while things like salaries of individuals could go
under the privacy right, even the personnel regulations (including salaries
by category or aggregate data by department or similar) should be public,
and although during a selection process can be acceptible that the documents
are reserved, after it is finished records allowing to verify the fairness
of the procedure should be public. ICANN is doing a public service to the
community, thus should be treated and operate like any other public body and
be fullly accountable. As an example, the European Commission regulations
says that everything is confidential unless public (from which some of my
comments on the declaration from MEPs forwarded by Netiva), but the salary
grids (salary by grade and years of service) are available on the internet
to everybody.
      The comment on the last sentence of point 9 goes with the one on point
2 - in many if not most countries the criteria for non-profit organisations
are at least in theory much less strict that for public bodies: an audit
would guarantee that the theory becomes practice, but the criteria should
then the strict ones and not the "easy" ones.
     I Hope my comments will be useful and clear enough to be understood as
meant.
###

This are some comments about Yokohama Statement on Civil Society and ICANN 

> 1. ICANN must be representative. 
> 
> 
> ICANN currently suffers from a democracy deficit. Since its creation 
> in 1998 and continuing to the present, the commercial sector has had 
> disproportionate representation on the Board of Directors.  The 
> democracy deficit will continue at least until all At Large Board 
> seats are filled by elected representatives. 
Well, but soon At large elections will take place.

> · ICANN should embrace the membership provisions of its bylaws. 
> Election procedures should be made more open, barriers to candidacy 
> reduced, and full rights of membership should be recognized. In 
> particular, provisions that attempt to weaken the legal rights of 
> members should be removed from the by-laws. 
Please, I want to know what are such paragraphs in the by-laws that
weaken legal rights of members.  Not everybody have read such bylaws and now
everybody is able to understand the legal implications of such by laws and how
far can reach. 

> · Internet users in many developing countries have Email but not web 
> access. ICANN membership should be possible (and easy) with just an 
> Email connection. 
Totally agree

> · The Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) should restructure 
> its constituencies to reduce the disproportionate representation 
> given to business and intellectual property interests. 
I am agree:
80% of ISPs in the world are business and they form a constituency
100% of the gTLDs adminstrators are business and they form a constituency
100% Registrars in the world are business and they form a constituency
And this adding to the bussiness constituency.  Then we have 4 constituencies
that almost represent commercial interests.  However, the non-commercial (civil
society, scientific, charity, etc) interests are represented only by one
constituency.

> · The DNSO should recognize new constituencies, including an 
> Individual Domain Name Holders constituency, a developing countries 
> constituency, and a small business constituency. 
I am agree with the IDNO constituency.  However, the other ones you propose are
not so factible since, for example, what in some parts are considered small
bussiness in others is large.  What criteria do you propose for make possible a
"small business constituency"?  And for developing countries, maybe this is a
subject for GAC.  This is not about a constituency.  This is about having two
GACs: One composed by the Developed Countries and one composed by Development
Countries. 

> 2. ICANN must be transparent. 
> 
> 
> Information-sharing should be maximized before, during, and after all 
> ICANN decisions. 
They are trying to do it.  This is not a easy job.  They have minutes on line.
We must fight for translations to different languages before, during and after.

> · ICANN should make available records of the process and content of 
> all decisions, except those pertaining to personnel or to the 
> negotiation of contracts. 
ICANN is doing this already.

> · The cash flow structure of ICANN should be made public. A strict 
> lineal path should be established between expense request, 
> authorization, issuance of purchase order, receipt of invoice, 
> delivery, and payment. 
Of course, ICANN has to publish auditory every year.  However, contract an
auditory firm would be very expensive. 

> · ICANN should publish a report with each of its decisions that 
> explains how the action being taken fits within ICANN's scope and how 
> the decision was created by an open and transparent process based on 
> the consent of a majority of ICANN participants. 
Agree.
 

> 3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes. 
> 
> 
> ICANN is in danger of becoming an organization whose policies and 
> practices are determined by its staff. ICANN needs to rededicate 
> itself to its original conception as a decentralized, bottom-up 
> standards making organization. 
> · ICANN staff must show more respect for procedural safeguards and 
> checks and balances.
Agree 

> · The unelected Board seat reserved for ICANN's President should be 
> eliminated. 
Well, as far as I know, President is elected withing the elected board. 
>The entire Board should be democratically elected. 
In my country, the Legistative Assembly is elected democraticly and the
President of the Legislative Assembly is elected within the members of the
Legistative Assembly and this is considered widely democratic.

> · ICANN should not select a new President until after the first round 
> of At Large elections. 
Of course, Presidents election might count with all the elected Board members.

>Any candidate for the position of ICANN 
> President should not accept an offer until after the At Large 
> elections. 
Agree

> · No person or entity that played an active role in the creation of 
> ICANN should obtain any benefit from ICANN or be a party to any 
> contract with ICANN until 24 months have elapsed after that role has 
> ceased (no "revolving door" of personnel transfers between ICANN and 
> external partners.) 
I think that it should be specified the list of "benefits".   We
must remember that many people involved actively in ICANN are the gurus in the
internet industry and maybe this statement block them to colaborate with ICANN
during 24 months after they role within ICANN.

> · No person who has been member of the board or has held an executive 
> office under ICANN should obtain any benefit from ICANN or be a party 
> to any contract with ICANN until 24 months have elapsed after that 
> role has ceased. 
Same as above.

> 4. Intellectual property rights are not privileged over other rights. 
> The European Convention on Human Rights states, "Everyone has the 
> right to freedom of expression" (Article 10). ICANN should not 
> compromise the right of expression in order to protect the right of 
> property. 
Agree.  However, ICANN has to assure to trademarks owners that, for example, if
a new gTLD .complaints is created, then that only the ones who has to be with
Consumers Rights manage such gTLDs and will asign such domain only to the
proper person or entity that manages complaints from the consumer.

> · DNS administration should not be leveraged to expand the scope of 
> intellectual property rights (IPR).  Civil law has been an adequate 
> vehicle for regulating property. Changes in the scope and nature of 
> international IPR protection should be made through national 
> legislatures and international treaties.
Agree.  However, this would be very slow.  Thanks ICANN that they coordinated
some policies about it. 

> · Should DNS policy unavoidably intersect other policy areas, ICANN 
> should be equally mindful of rights, laws, and norms protecting free 
> expression, privacy, the public domain, and noncommercial use. 
> · The Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) passed in 1999 without 
> the representation or consent of Internet users should be subject to 
> review and vote of reauthorization. 
ICANN cannot wait until all the internet users in the world be able to vote and
give their opinion.  Some things has to begin to be done. 

> · Intellectual property rights are best protected by establishing 
> special zones in the domain name space for trademark (e.g. 
> ".trademark"). 
Agree.

> 5. ICANN must limit itself to technical policy-making. 
> The power over Internet users inherent in DNS administration should 
> not be used to make public policy. 
> · IP address management and DNS root server management need not be 
> combined in the same organization. There are strong political, 
> organizational, and technical reasons to separate address management 
> from DNS policy making. 
Just want to know what are those reasons in order to suscribe or not to such
statement.
 

> · ICANN must not be used as an instrument to promote policies 
> relating to conduct or content on the Internet.  Its by-laws should 
> explicitly recognize limitations on its powers in order to guard 
> against expansion of mission ("mission creep"). 
I think that ICANN and GAC should work together in campaings to make a better
internet for everyone.   The childrens are
also internet users.  Internet shouldn not be a weapon against  them.  I would
encourage ICANN to create a gTLD only for pornographic sites, then I would
encourage GAC to reach to resolutions and compromises to pass laws in their
countries that all pornographic websites has to move obligatorily to
pornographic gTLD.  Then would be easier for parents to block pornographic
websites because all that they have to do is to block whatever it comes from
such gTLD.

> 6. The domain name space is not an exclusively public resource. 
> The assertion that "the [domain] name space is a public resource" (by 
> ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee) provides a basis for 
> excessive state control. Likewise, the "natural monopoly" model of 
> country code TLD (ccTLD) registries creates an opportunity for 
> excessive control. 
ccTLDs are a country patrimony.  In my opinion, ccTLDs has to be managed
administratively and technically inside the country and serve to nationals of
such country.  However, each country have all the right to sell domains to
whatever they want, as far as always administratively and technically are
managed by national (not transnational) organizations inside the
country.

> · The domain name space is not an exclusively public resource. 
> Assertions of public control over zones in the domain name space need 
> explicit justification. 
Only ccTLDs.

> · Public resources in the domain name space need not be under the 
> control of national governments. 
ccTLDs should be under the control and serve the country.  The country is
composed by people citizens and the government.  The government is elected by
citizens. 

> · Multiple, parallel, and possibly overlapping TLDs registries for 
> supra-national, national, sub-national, regional, cultural, 
> linguistic, and other social and political groupings should not be 
> excluded from the root. This is the basis of a vibrant civil society. 
Not agree.   Use the gTLDs if you want to register a domain that wants to
express globality. 

If you don't want that countries controls ccTLDs then ccTLDs should be
eliminated.   One or two. There are no gray zones here.

> 7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided. 
> Control points and artificial scarcity in DNS create barriers to 
> Internet access and foster regulation of users. 
> · The DNS root is a single point of failure on the Internet that 
> threatens operational stability. 
> · The single DNS root is a control point. ICANN should support the 
> evolutionary development of the DNS away from a centralized 
> architecture. 
> · ICANN should encourage the interconnection of the DNS with 
> alternate name spaces. 
> · Scarcity in domain names creates opportunities for control. 
> Expansion of the domain name space through the creation of new TLD 
> registries should be ICANN's highest priority. 
> · Expansion of the Internet domain name space should be unconstrained 
> (except for technical constraints -- to the extent that such 
> constraints exist.) Expansion through decentralization of the root 
> and growth in top level domains is especially desirable. 

Agree.  However, measures to achieve such objectives might take in count the
stability of the Internet.  The White Paper states that one of the goals of
ICANN is assure the Internet stability, and whatever it is going to do, might
not compromise such stability.
 

> · The use of domain names as a marketing device to index content 
> creates excessive value in domain names and creates disincentives to 
> innovation. The technical evolution of DNS should not be unduly 
> inhibited by its use as a marketing technology by commercial users. 
Agree

> 8. ICANN must respect privacy. 
> · ICANN's policies and internal procedures should adhere to Fair 
> Information Practices, based on the OECD Privacy Guidelines. 
> · ICANN's policies for domain name and address management should not 
> discourage the adoption of genuine privacy enhancing techniques or 
> undermine the right of anonymity. 
If this is done, then how Cocacola can make a suit against cyberaquatters that
owned their name in order to sell it, if Cocacola doesn't knows the name of the
one who owns the domain name?  There are things that are public, and one of
them is who are the one who registered the domain name.  This is necessary.

> 9. Costs should be minimal and equitable. 
> Similar services delivered in different parts of the world can have 
> different value.  Likewise, users' ability to pay can vary 
> dramatically. 
> · ICANN's costs should be distributed in a manner that corresponds to 
> the costs caused by different users. 
> · Many costs have arisen from the high priority given by ICANN's 
> Board to address the concerns of commercial Internet users.  Costs 
> assessed to those users should reflect this. 
> · ICANN should at all times strive to minimize costs (e.g. rather 
> than holding Board meetings in business class facilities, ICANN 
> should use non-profit quality facilities.) 
> · ICANN should allow an outside audit of expenses, business 
> practices, cost controls, and accounting methods.  The standard of 
> evaluation should be that of public-benefit non-profit entities 
> rather than those of for-profit corporations. 
I think they are trying to do this.

I think that also an statement like this should add:

ICANN must assure the outreach by providing translations in, at least five
languages that UN has as official, of all information that are of public domain
produced by ICANN.  This include simultaneous translations in every meeting
and in real time minutes taken. 

###

>> 0. guiding values
>      fine with me
> 
> >ICANN must be reprsentative
>      what constituencies do you recommend for dnso.  for asia-pacific,
>      i am recommending four; registry, registrar, commercial, non-commercial

how many constituencies for DNSO?
---------------------------------

in Asia-Pacific(APTLD/APDN), we discussed and came up with the supplier-
consumer model first.  the suppliers of the domain names include registry
and registrar, and the consumers include commercial users and non-commercial
users.

it was unfortunate that DNSO formation process did not come up with the 
topdown analysis like the above one in Asia-Pacific.  instead, we played
with the numbers(i.e., how many constituencies?).  whoever there with
reasonable voices could claim one.  thus, the 7 constituency is the 
compromise without architecture.

> 
>> ICANN must use bottom-up processes
>      "......bottom-up standards making organization."
>                       ?????????
>                       technical coordination(or policy making)
> 
>> ICANN must limit..............
>      i like possible separation of IP and DNS.

i have not seen any convincing reason why IP and DNS have to be put under
one umbrella. they are distinctively different area without much overlap
in term of technical coordination.  if we really need to coordinate any
issue involving both areas, we could form the joint committee as we usually
do in the internet community.

> 
>> The name space..............
>      i like the concept of "public AND private zones".
> 
>> ICANN should encourage.......................
>      "....interconnection of DNS with alternate name spaces." may not be
>      a good idea even though it is technically feasible.  we need a lot of
>      debate, and we are discussing on the multilingual domain names now. 
>      we may end up having many internet islands who could not communicate
>      each other.

the alernate name spaces could potentially valcanize the global internet
if we don't handle properly as this could happen in the multilingual domain
names, which is under heavy discussion now.  we have not come up with 
techically clean solution on the "decentralization of the DNS" including
the alternate name space.  i hope we could have such a technical solution
somtime so that we could move away from the only centralized sysem called
DNS in the Internet.  the strength of the Internet is the distributed nature
which provides flexibility and robustness.

> 
>> "......maximum extent....."
>      as i mentioned, this is technically feasible with one million or more,
>      but we are not sure if this is good idea.  would 10,000 TLDs be good 
>      enough?
> 
>      the decentralization of DNS may be desirable, but we are not sure
>      technically yet.
> 
>> "...parallel registry of ccTLD"
>      this need to be looked at, but it would take sometime before we could
>      conclude on this matter.

if i understand the parallel registry of ccTLD as multiple registries of 
ccTLD such as .kr, .kor, and .korea, this may be same as creating .com,
and .firm.  instead, we are discussing on ASCII ccTLD which we use now(such
as .kr), and multilingual ccTLD such as .korea in korean character. 
###

Some observationson the document are marked with *** as follows:
 

 Guiding Values

1. ICANN must be representative.

*** prefer a stronger statement on commitment to geographic diversity and
needs of emerging communities in both
***developed and developing countries. I wonder who is worrying about the
needs of inner-city Internet communities
***in the US.

2. ICANN must be transparent.

3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes.

4. Intellectual property rights are not privileged over other rights.

5. ICANN must limit itself to technical policy-making.

6. The domain name space is not an exclusively public resource.

***would want a statement on ensuring equitable access to net services

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.

8. ICANN must respect privacy.

***public interest is also important

9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.

***barriers to participation be removed.

Issues in the ICANN Elections

? The DNSO should recognize an Individual Domain Name Holders constituency.
? The DNSO should recognize a developing countries constituency.

***NO. This makes it easy to isolate developing countries and become even
more disenfranchised.
***we become easy targets.
***Developing countries want to be part of mainstream as equals. I wonder if
we should have a
***constituency for developed countries.

6. The domain name space is not an exclusively public resource.
The assertion that "the [domain] name space is a public resource" (by ICANN'
s Governmental Advisory Committee) provides a basis for excessive state
control. Likewise, the "natural monopoly" model of country code TLD (ccTLD)
registries creates an opportunity for excessive control.

***must recognize the status quo of cctlds in developing countries who have
risked their lives
***working sometimes secretely to bring Internet to their countries

? The domain name space is not an exclusively public resource. Assertions of
public control over zones in the domain name space need explicit
justification.
? Public resources in the domain name space need not be under the control of
national governments.
? Multiple, parallel, and possibly overlapping TLDs registries for
supra-national, national, sub-national, regional, cultural, linguistic, and
other social and political groupings should not be excluded from the root.
This is the basis of a vibrant civil society.

***need statement on stability of the net

7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.
Control points and artificial scarcity in DNS create barriers to Internet
access and foster regulation of users.
? The DNS root is a single point of failure on the Internet that threatens
operational stability.
? The single DNS root is a control point. ICANN should support the
evolutionary development of the DNS away from a centralized architecture.
? ICANN should encourage the interconnection of the DNS with alternate name
spaces.

***the alternates are getting in through the backdoor and will be
criticised. need a fair and open process

? Scarcity in domain names creates opportunities for control. Expansion of
the domain name space through the creation of new TLD registries should be
ICANN's highest priority.

***not clear. a gradual expansion is preferred.

? Expansion of the Internet domain name space should be unconstrained
(except for technical constraints -- to the extent that such constraints
exist.) Expansion through decentralization of the root and growth in top
level domains is especially desirable.

***stability of the net is very important here.
###

Below are some thoughts on the draft Yokohama Statement
(http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/yoko_statement.html).  I want to
emphasize at the outset that the following are personal views only.

>1. ICANN must be representative.

"globally representative" perhaps?  I suppose that since the Internet is by
its nature a global phenomenon, this should go without saying.  Just a
thought, though, to emphasize the oft-forgotten-in-the-US global nature of
the Internet and especially its technical infrastructure.

>2. ICANN must be transparent.

I'm not sure that something you can see through would be any better than
what we've got.  "ICANN's processes must be transparent" perhaps?  I don't
know how common that term is in other languages (Japanese, for instance),
but it might be too much of a term of art to use as a general principle.
That being said, there are no other single English words which get the idea
across.  Perhaps "decision-making processes" to be more specific?

>3. ICANN must use bottom-up processes.

Again, presumably this refers to decision-making processes.  "Bottom-up" is
such a cliché, and may actually be meaningless, but I suppose that it has a
certain cachet in the Internet community.  Unfortunately, I think people
romanticize the Internet's past and confuse the IETF's working groups
(populated by vendors, not individuals) with the way that most elements of
the Internet's technical infrastructure have been run in the past.  The US
DoC's control of the root has never been particularly bottom-up.  Insisting
on bottom-up processes obscures the need for authoritative decision-making
power at the top of any organization.  Right now that power comes from the
US government.  "Bottom up" may be a better alternative in name, but what is
really needed is a legitimate international basis for Internet governance.
We don't have one yet, and it is the essential underlying issue, but we
won't find that out until ICANN actually tries to do something.

>4. Intellectual property rights are not privileged over other rights.

True, but in many cases it's a case of competing intellectual property
rights (e.g. personal names which happen to be identical or close to
corporate names).  How about "Intellectual property rights should be
interpreted no more broadly in the context of Internet infrastructure than
any other context."  That should satisfy Milton ;-).

When it comes to elaborating on "other rights" in the commentary to #4, I
would add the right to communicate to the right to freedom of expression.
Andrew Clement can provide useful pointers on that concept, which is
somewhat nascent, but absolutely critical if we are to preserve the sense
that the Internet is primarily a communications medium, not a commercial
medium.  A lot of other values fall in place after that one, but the
political climate in the US is currently hostile to any recognition of the
Internet's public nature, except when it comes to keeping that nasty NSI in
check.

>5. ICANN must limit itself to technical policy-making.

Hmm, I think that's impossible.  Should new TLDs be added?  Is that a
technical policy decision?  The technical part of it is probably the easiest
part.  The economic and legal parts, though, are devilishly difficult.  They
constitute nothing less than global public policy issues, and deserve to be
treated as such, but aren't (yet).  As suggested above, ICANN is
fundamentally incapable of dealing with such issues authoritatively, but we
won't find that out until ICANN actually tries to do something.

>6. The domain name space is not an exclusively public resource.

Like Andrew, I have serious concerns about this one.  To phrase it in such a
negative way is confusing, but I suspect that's to express the sentiment of
the more ACLU-minded folks out there.  The commentary consists of a critique
of something that the GAC has said, not something ICANN has said.  Traffic
laws provide a basis for ridiculously excessive state control, but it's the
function of democracy to ensure that only that 'state control' which is
necessary is implemented.  This is not a fight over whether there is going
to be any 'state control' or 'ICANN control', but rather what that control
should look like.

I would prefer to see this statement removed completely, but if not, then I
would suggest: "The Internet's technical infrastructure [or domain name
space] is a globally-shared resource with public and private functions."

>7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.

Gee, can you tell that Milton wrote this?  Artificial scarcity is what got
us into this mess in the first place, but centralization isn't always bad.
I'd qualify with "unnecessary centralization". 

>8. ICANN must respect privacy.

Vague, but harmless and definitely good in principle.

>9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.

Vague - how about: "Any costs imposed in relation to the management and/or
use of the Internet's technical infrastructure [or domain name system]
should be minimal and equitable."  The commentary on this one is very good.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment and I hope that some of these are
helpful.  I look forward to reading the next draft. 

###

O.K. On the whole, I'd support the positions laid out in the document. 

The only ones I'm uncomfortable with are: 

Item 5. ICANN should not "MAKE" technical policy. It's role should be limited to "COORDINATING" such policies. It may be a definitional quibble but, IMHO, in most cases it doesn't matter if everyone uses the same "policy" as long as the differences are sufficiently coordinated that that don't "break" anything unwittingly; and 

Item 6. I object to the idea that any portion of the name space (or any other part of the free association of individual and institutional interests which form the internet) is a "public resource". 
###

I think some important puzzles creep in right at the beginning:

<<This draft document articulates a civil society perspective on the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and
identifies issues for the upcoming At Large elections.

Civil society is a third sector of society alongside the state and
the market. Civil society supports freedom of association, freedom of
expression, participatory democracy, and respect for diversity.  A
vigorous civil society is also an important limit on the power of
governments and on the power of the commercial sector.

We encourage individuals and organizations to discuss this statement
internally and with others and to suggest improvements. This
statement will be further developed at the:>>

The puzzle, I think, has to do with what is really being said about "civil
society" here, and about the role of business and government: are business
and government "perspectives" not to be part of ICANN, as the first sentence
above seems to say?

Let me illustrate the question by trying out a revision!

"This draft document articulates a "three sectors" perspective on the. . .

The "three sectors" perspective holds that a democratic society can be
fruitfully viewed as a three-legged table: the legs are the business sector,
the government sector the voluntary of civic sector: this last sector made
up of all those nonbusiness and nongovernment agencies of values and service
that reflect and embody the interests of the citizenry at large

We believe that when the three sectors are not in balance, a nation--or an
organization like ICANN--is not in balance.

We propose reorganizing ICANN to develop a more balanced relationship
between the three sectors in our membership and in our governance."

If this introduction and the view expressed in it is acceptable, the three
sectors ideas would be embodied in many of the sections that follow.
###

I agree with most of it and would also add some conditions on what makes these at-large elections legitimate.

Below 100.000 voters with at least 40% not coming from North America or the
EU, these elections will have a very low value and the elected members will
have no real capacity to move things.

What did the Yokohama statement supporters do about this aspect of
increasing the number of voters?

Last point, for the candidates, the profile made by ICANN underlines that
they must have technical competences. It is quite surprising as there are
quite a lot of these competences in ICANN right now. what's missing are the
other competences.

Aything planned about that?
 ###

>Couple of quick comments:
>
>I like it.
>
>I would like to see something (in Section 2?) to say that ICANN should
>follow ex-parte meeting rules (some wording to explain the need to protect
>ICANN officers and board from unfair pressure and also to ensure openness.)
>Meeting includes all face to face, substantive telephone calls or email on
>issues before the board or it's supporting organizations, advisory councils
>and committees.  I'm sure there are well know rules for this.
>
>ICANN policy proposals that are the result of public comment process should
>follow a statement and comment format. (I am not sure of the formal name
>for this, I mean something like the US dept Commerce White Paper, where the
>policy statement is presented item by item and then the reasoning for that
>itemized decision is given as a comment.) If an organization calls for
>public comment it has a duty (and good manners) to explain where those
>comments have been adopted or not.
>
>ICANN should use plain language in its English documents.  As an
>international organization ICANN has an obligation to its constituents to
>ensure that all documents are written in plain English (if they cannot be
>translated.) Example: ICANN Board meeting minutes are written in form that
>is difficult for anyone working in their second language. If this format is
>required for legal (incorporation?) reasons, then explanatory documents
>should be provided.
>
>ICANN's public comment and response period is too short and should be
>extended to the international norm (6 to 8 weeks? The US small business
>administration has written to ICANN board on this matter and its
>recommendations should be adopted. See
><http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/icann99_1027.html>) For ICANN
>constituents working in other
>languages, they must read, comprehend, sometimes translate for wider
>distribution in the language/region, and then finally comment.  ICANN must
>extend its comment and response time.
>
>
>As others have mentions using "public" can be interpreted differently.
>Should be defined if used. It has some "baggage" the domain debate from
>IAHC days.
>
>Section 7.
>I think I understand why it has been included, but it doesn't seem in line
>with the rest of the comments. I think something that warns against ICANN
>locking itself into an organizational/political structure that reflects the
>current state of technology could be mentioned.  ICANN must embrace new
>technologies that may bring improvement to the current system of Internet
>naming and addressing, and seek improvements a that avoid artificial
>scarcity and centralization, etc.
>
>(I don't think mention of alt roots, etc., is necessary - it's
>controversial and may distract from the message of the whole statement.
>There may be detractors who will look for targets to try and bring the
>whole thing down.)
>
>Section 8.
>OECD privacy guidelines.  Summarize, and give a URL.  Perhaps explain how
>the OECD privacy stuff differs from and is superior to those put forward by
>the US, EU or any other world body.
>
###
 

[posted 30 June 2000]

This draft "Yokohama Statement on Civil Society and ICANN 
Elections" is an important step in making ICANN more democratic 
and publicly accountable. 

Generally the 9 principles appear sound and useful. While much of 
the Statement is devoted to a vital wresting of control away from 
commercial dominance, I have some trouble with the wording of 
Principle #6: "The domain name space is not an exclusively public 
resource." It appears to equate public resource with something that 
national governments have an exclusive right to control. When 
popularly elected, they are the strongest and most legitimate 
representatives of the public interest.  National governments have 
an important role to play in the ICANN, and should be much more 
active in fulfilling their public interest mandate. The problem is not 
that the resource has been deemed 'public,' but rather that too 
often national governements are not sufficiently democratic nor fully 
representative of public interests. In ICANN therefore, they need to 
be  supplemented and counter balanced by other publicly 
interested/accountable forums/groupings. 

In the end, the remedy the Statement proposes heads in the right 
direction, namely TLDs controlled by other government and civil 
society groupings. 

Therefore, a better formulation for Principle #6 may be: "Not 
national governments alone should control the domain name space 
public resource. Other democratic bodies too." (Though this needs 
shortening)

###

The basic problem is that ICANN has made it illegal to register a domain with a phony name and address, and
may well do lots more to make it easier to track people, mostly on behalf of copyright owners.  I think it is important to say that privacy
is something that this important, and anonymous speech is also important.
###

Friendly comments/change below:

>              Yokohama Statement
>                       on
>         Civil Society and ICANN Elections
>
>· ICANN should make available records of the process and content of all 
>decisions, except those pertaining to personnel or to the negotiation of 
>contracts.

Specify the kinds of contracts excmuded from publication
 
 

>ICANN is in danger of becoming an organization whose policies and 
>practices are determined by its staff. ICANN needs to rededicate itself to 
>its original conception as a decentralized, bottom-up standards making 
>organization.
>· ICANN staff must show more respect for procedural safeguards and checks 
>and balances.

Move the 2 items below to section 1 ?

>· DNS administration should not be leveraged to expand the scope of 
>intellectual property rights (IPR).  Civil law has been an adequate 
>vehicle for regulating property. Changes in the scope and nature of 
>international IPR protection should be made through national legislatures
>and international treaties.

Through international treaties first?

>· Intellectual property rights are best protected by establishing special 
>zones in the domain name space for trademark (e.g. ".trademark").
And by requesting evidence of trademark rights at the time of registering a 
domain name.

>5. ICANN must limit itself to technical policy-making.
>
>OK
 

>· Multiple, parallel, and possibly overlapping TLDs registries for 
>supra-national, national, sub-national, regional, cultural, linguistic, 
>and other social and political groupings should not be excluded from the 
>root. This is the basis of a vibrant civil society.

OK but why not any particular constituency (social and political groupings 
as above?) among Internet users has the right to a TLD, especially if undue 
restrictions are imposed for using existing ones

>7. Artificial scarcity and centralization should be avoided.

OK but may need to state more precisely what ICANN should do

>8. ICANN must respect privacy.
>
>OK
 
 

>9. Costs should be minimal and equitable.
>
>Similar services delivered in different parts of the world can have 
>different value.  Likewise, users' ability to pay can vary dramatically.
>· ICANN's costs should be distributed in a manner that corresponds to the 
>costs caused by different users.

and adjusted to their nature and resources (see below)

>· Many costs have arisen from the high priority given by ICANN's Board to 
>address the concerns of commercial Internet users.  Costs assessed to 
>those users should reflect this.

OK But need a strong and specific statement re not for profit and 
developing countries users

Move the 2 items below under section 2) Transparency
###

Draft Yokohama Statement on Civil Society and ICANN Elections

Civil society is a third sector of society alongside the state and 
the market. Civil society supports freedom of association, freedom of
expression, participatory democracy, and respect for diversity.  A 
vigorous civil society is also an important limit on the power of 
governments and on the power of the commercial sector.

MP>>Civil society often does not support freedom of expression, participatory democracy and respect for diversity - as recent history shows. It may be a necessary condition for these factors. Perhaps a rewording, "Civil society is necessary if there is to be....

6. The domain name space is not an exclusively public resource.

MP>>Public in this sense means different things to different cultures. Public can be taken to mean non state sector or state sector. 

4. Intellectual property rights are not privileged over other rights.

· Intellectual property rights are best protected by establishing  special zones in the domain name space for trademark (e.g. 
".trademark").

MP>>I think this needs to be explained a bit better for those who have not followed the debate.

6. The domain name space is not an exclusively public resource.

MP>>Again the term 'public' needs clarification. I presume 'state' is meant.

Likewise, the "natural monopoly" model of 
country code TLD (ccTLD) registries creates an opportunity for 
excessive control.

MP>>This is very problematic. The purpose of ccTLD was for these to be country specific - essentially to be controlled by each state. While I am against 'excessive' control, this is for each country to decide upon and for the citizens of that state to deal with. I would be opposed to ICANN telling states what regulations (other than for the global operation of the Internet) can & cannot be implemented.

###