Page History
...
For a diagram of the intersection, see Sebastien's blog at: htttp://sebastien.bachollet.fr
Pierre Dandjinou
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Alan Greenberg
In the context of ICANN, I would say that an “end-user” is any person who uses the Internet.
A registrant is any person or entity that registers a domain name. Such names could be gTLDs which are registered under the auspices of ICANN, or those managed by other entities (ccTLDs, .edu, etc). For domains registered through privacy services, the service is technically the registrant, although it is common to talk about the originator of the request as a “registrant” as well.
“Consumer” is far more difficult to define in the context of ICANN. It might be someone who “buys” a domain name (although “buy” is a misnomer) – ie a registrant. Or it could be anyone who purchases any service with respect to Internet names and numbers which could include domain names, ISP services, web services, and so forth. Or it could be used for those who buy things over the Internet. Combinations of these could also fall under the general title of “consumer. And there are probably some other versions as well.
2. Describe your level of satisfaction with ICANN's current performance in responding to end-user and registrant concerns.
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Not happy.
Pierre Dandjinou
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Alan Greenberg
I believe that ICANN has not done nearly as good a job as it could have and should have. It seems to have gotten somewhat better recently, but only driven by situations that can only be described as scandalous (for a start, registrar failure after early warnings ignored, lack of compliance actions in a number of areas, contracts which do not even allow for incremental penalties and therefore have not been enforced at all).
Notwithstanding the inadequate staff action, the ACs and SOs have not adequately addressed these issues either. Again, that has slowly started, but there is still a general lack of enthusiasm for putting time and energy into these areas. I can speak with some personal interest on this, as the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP was initiated by the ALAC on my initiative, and I am now chairing the PDP WG which has been very poorly supported by both At-Large and the GNSO user constituencies.
End users are those at the other side of the Internet dispensation: those who uses the internet for their daily life and therefore have to access services by investing in many ways on the devices (computers. laptops or mobile telephones) and access infrastructure (broadband, leased line, optic fiber,..).
The consumer is client to different actors of the Internet industry, be there carriers, isps or content providers.
The registrants are individual or corporate clients of a registrar who ‘owns’ domain names as one of the critical resources of the Internet.
Alan Greenberg
In the context of ICANN, I would say that an “end-user” is any person who uses the Internet.
A registrant is any person or entity that registers a domain name. Such names could be gTLDs which are registered under the auspices of ICANN, or those managed by other entities (ccTLDs, .edu, etc). For domains registered through privacy services, the service is technically the registrant, although it is common to talk about the originator of the request as a “registrant” as well.
“Consumer” is far more difficult to define in the context of ICANN. It might be someone who “buys” a domain name (although “buy” is a misnomer) – ie a registrant. Or it could be anyone who purchases any service with respect to Internet names and numbers which could include domain names, ISP services, web services, and so forth. Or it could be used for those who buy things over the Internet. Combinations of these could also fall under the general title of “consumer. And there are probably some other versions as well.
2. Describe your level of satisfaction with ICANN's current performance in responding to end-user and registrant concerns.3. Is the current speed of the new gTLD creation process happening too fast, too slow, or at the right pace?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Too slow for the development of the process.
Too fast for the proposed root introduction (not for technical reason but more for end-users acceptance)Not happy.
Pierre DandjinouCandidate has not yet submitted answers.
Not really satisfied!
Alan Greenberg
I think that the current pace is probably about right. But that is a result of initially FAR underestimating the amount of preparatory work that was needed, with the resultant delays and need to address specific issues, each one working in crisis mode. Intellectual Property issues were arguably the worst – it required two consecutive crisis-mode interventions.
4. What is, in your opinion, the scope of ICANN? What are the limits of its authority?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Technical coordination body with policies associated and compliance tools.
Also to have a real and complete policy to outreach and inreach the various stakeholders but with a special emphasis on the non contracted parties.
Pierre Dandjinou
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Alan Greenberg
The scope of ICANN is defined in its Articles of Incorporation (http://icann.org/en/general/articles.htm). Specifically:
Wiki Markup In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall \[…\] pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by \(i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items \(i) through (iv).
That being said, there is the potential for a lot of discretion on just what “performing and overseeing” entails. Interpretations range from that of minimalists who say that if a function is not absolutely mandatory, then ICANN should not do it, to those that believe that virtually everything related to the Internet uses IP and DNS and is thus in ICANN’s purview.
I tend to come down somewhere in the middle. I believe that ICANN must not only do the bare minimum associated with the issues defined above, but has a responsibility to do it in a technically and socially responsible manner. So, for example, ICANN is not a law enforcement agency and has no power to pursue and punish someone who damages the operational characteristics of the Internet. But ICANN does have a responsibility to do things in such a way that considers the potential for wrong-doing and performs its duties so as to minimize (or perhaps just control) the vulnerability to such wrong-doing.
The limits of ICANN’s authority is a far more challenging question. ICANN has minimal authority to take action to enforce adherence to the standards and rules it creates. If a contract exists, it is potentially enforceable. ICANN has (almost) control over what is placed in the Root Servers. And implicit in this, ICANN has some ability to disconnect (logically, since ICANN has control of minimal physical infrastructure) parts of the Internet if doing otherwise would cause problems with the rest of the net. In most such cases, it is not really ICANN’s authority that allows this, but the desire of the major infrastructure providers (such as most of the Root Server operators) to adhere to ICANN standards or actions. Over and above that, ICANN’s “authority” comes from a desire by most of the world to enjoy a single, functioning Internet.
5. As a Director, what would be your interest in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
One subject among many other subjects. But an important one to protect, as much as possible, the end-users. And now with the VI decision, the needs for protection to the end-users are more important.
Pierre Dandjinou
believe that ICANN has not done nearly as good a job as it could have and should have. It seems to have gotten somewhat better recently, but only driven by situations that can only be described as scandalous (for a start, registrar failure after early warnings ignored, lack of compliance actions in a number of areas, contracts which do not even allow for incremental penalties and therefore have not been enforced at all).
Notwithstanding the inadequate staff action, the ACs and SOs have not adequately addressed these issues either. Again, that has slowly started, but there is still a general lack of enthusiasm for putting time and energy into these areas. I can speak with some personal interest on this, as the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP was initiated by the ALAC on my initiative, and I am now chairing the PDP WG which has been very poorly supported by both At-Large and the GNSO user constituencies.
3. Is the current speed of the new gTLD creation process happening too fast, too slow, or at the right pace?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Too slow for the development of the process.
Too fast for the proposed root introduction (not for technical reason but more for end-users acceptance).
Pierre Dandjinou
I think the process is moving at the right pace because there is a need to listen to all interested parties and consider their concerns. The business has its own preoccupations and issues such as competition maybe the norm there. But the end user needs to be protected and have a fair and affordable access to domain names as one of the critical resources of the Internet.
Alan Greenberg
I think that the current pace is probably about right. But that is a result of initially FAR underestimating the amount of preparatory work that was needed, with the resultant delays and need to address specific issues, each one working in crisis mode. Intellectual Property issues were arguably the worst – it required two consecutive crisis-mode interventions.
4. What is, in your opinion, the scope of ICANN? What are the limits of its authority?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Technical coordination body with policies associated and compliance tools.
Also to have a real and complete policy to outreach and inreach the various stakeholders but with a special emphasis on the non contracted parties.
Pierre Dandjinou
ICANN deals with coordination of the functioning of the Internet ; as such, it is responsible for the smooth operation of what has become a global common goods. The limits of ICANN authorities remain in the way it operates, through contracting with third parties on the one hand, and with the US government on the other side. ICANN is incorporated in California where it has to abide by Californian law on non for profit corporations; however, it also deals with various stakeholders that are scattered around the world; so, ICANN in the course of it activity, namely in policy development process should reconcile positions and views of all as well as cater for diverse languages. This may be time consuming and limit ICANN ‘s efficiency.
ICANN’s authority could be questionable at times because of the manner in which management of critical resources such as the root server, the DNS, and the IP addressing is done, whereby different institutions (IANA for instance) and supporting organizations (cctlds registries and Internet registries) acts on through contracts with ICANN
Alan Greenberg
The scope of ICANN is defined in its Articles of Incorporation (http://icann.org/en/general/articles.htm). Specifically:
Wiki Markup In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall \[…\] pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by \(i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items \(i) through (iv).
That being said, there is the potential for a lot of discretion on just what “performing and overseeing” entails. Interpretations range from that of minimalists who say that if a function is not absolutely mandatory, then ICANN should not do it, to those that believe that virtually everything related to the Internet uses IP and DNS and is thus in ICANN’s purview.
I tend to come down somewhere in the middle. I believe that ICANN must not only do the bare minimum associated with the issues defined above, but has a responsibility to do it in a technically and socially responsible manner. So, for example, ICANN is not a law enforcement agency and has no power to pursue and punish someone who damages the operational characteristics of the Internet. But ICANN does have a responsibility to do things in such a way that considers the potential for wrong-doing and performs its duties so as to minimize (or perhaps just control) the vulnerability to such wrong-doing.
The limits of ICANN’s authority is a far more challenging question. ICANN has minimal authority to take action to enforce adherence to the standards and rules it creates. If a contract exists, it is potentially enforceable. ICANN has (almost) control over what is placed in the Root Servers. And implicit in this, ICANN has some ability to disconnect (logically, since ICANN has control of minimal physical infrastructure) parts of the Internet if doing otherwise would cause problems with the rest of the net. In most such cases, it is not really ICANN’s authority that allows this, but the desire of the major infrastructure providers (such as most of the Root Server operators) to adhere to ICANN standards or actions. Over and above that, ICANN’s “authority” comes from a desire by most of the world to enjoy a single, functioning Internet.
5. As a Director, what would be your interest in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
One subject among many other subjects. But an important one to protect, as much as possible, the end-users. And now with the VI decision, the needs for protection to the end-users are more important.
Pierre Dandjinou
The RAA is an agreement between ICANN and a registrar whereby all dispositions have been taken to ensure that rules and standards are abide by when operating a registry. As a Director, I would be much interested in the handling (exploitation and destination) of the ‘’TLD Zone-File Data" ie. all data contained in a DNS zone file for the registry, or for any subdomain for which Registry Services are provided and that contains Registered Names, as provided to nameservers on the Internet.
More particularly, I am interested in Public Access to Data on Registered Names. Of course, the RRA stipulates that ‘At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by Registrar for each TLD in which it is accredited. It further on indicates that the data accessible shall consist of elements that are designated from time to time according to an ICANN adopted specification or policy.
In a nutshell, I will see to it that the end users, or the registrants are associated with the definition of policies related to their access to data on registered namesCandidate has not yet submitted answers.
Alan Greenberg
I would have great interest in the RAA. I believe that the original RAA was written in far too loose a manner. There are aspects that make its amendment very difficult and to date there has not been any effort to address this. As an example, the last negotiated change finally implemented in 2009 was very difficult to orchestrate because the agreement calls for GNSO approval of the changes, but does not allow for any GNSO involvement in establishing those changes, and the GNSO not surprisingly took a dim view of being asked to rubber-stamp the agreement.
...
• GNSO working on additional studies
• Staff publishing new reports
• As for the other subjects I would like as much as possible to hear the voice(s) of At-Large/ALAC. Help to build an At-Large/ALAC position and present and support it to the Board.
Pierre Dandjinou
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Alan Greenberg
I think that “balance” is the key word here. Currently the WHOIS information is used for a variety of purposes, some legitimate, some not. As long as information is completely public, there is little that can be done to protect against improper use. Moreover, it is understood that partly because of the above problem (and for other reasons), a lot of the information within WHOIS is invalid.
Following an interminable and unsuccessful process to try to “fix” WHOIS, we are now in the midst of a study phase. There are a number of formal studies that are being undertaken under the auspices of the GNSO, and a Affirmation of Commitments Review Team is just starting.
I cannot say what the proper answer is, other than ultimately, we must address both privacy needs and the needs of law enforcement (and others) who are involved in the addressing the misuse of the Internet.. I would think that TELNIC solution of addressing natural persons (human beings) differently from legal persons (companies and other organizations) is at least a part of the solution. No doubt that technology and some level of privileged access will also play a large part.
Regarding the suitability of WHOIS to accomplish its intended purpose, the answer is mixed. It is used perhaps millions of times daily and it does address a need, although clearly sometimes the answers it yields are incorrect or misleading. But if it was completely satisfying the needs, we would not have spend a large part of the last decade trying to fix it. So the answer is mixed.
One area that is not currently addressed at all is the ability of WHOIS to accept multiple languages and scripts and allow that information to be retrieved in a meaningful way. The overall Internet is finally starting to address Unicode and IDN issues and WHOIS is lagging badly behind. Note that this does not just impact IDN domains, but any domain that is registered using some language/script other than English.
Does WHOIS need to be fixed, replaced, discarded or left untouched? Well, certainly not untouched! I will leave it to a more detailed analysis to address how to change it once we figure out what we want to do.
I would suggest, only half jokingly, that perhaps we need to change the name. WHOIS has such a bad reputation at the moment that no matter what we do, if we keep the same name, it will be somewhat tarnished.
7. What initiatives will you *personally* undertake to increase ICANN's transparency and accountability?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Try as much as possible to stay connected to ALSs, RALOS and ALAC.
Pierre Dandjinou
Candidate has not yet submitted answers.
Alan Greenberg
I certainly plan to personally be as open with the At-Large community (and everyone) as rules, process and time commitments allow. Over that, a single Director cannot unilaterally change how things are done. However the atmosphere is primed for change in this area (due to the AoC, the ATRT, and general unrest over the perceived lack of transparency and accountability), so as a Director, I plan to continue to identify areas where I think improvements are needed and work towards remedies.
8. Do end-users and registrants have rights within ICANN? Should they? If you answered yes to either, state how you would encourage the rest of the board to effect this.
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Yes
All the Board members will be (and I am sure there were) encouraged by the role more and more important taken by At-Large/ALAC to the policies processes. If I am elected to the Board by the At-Large I will use any opportunity to show/explain to the other board members the role taken by the ALSs, the RALOs and ALAC.
Pierre Dandjinou
new reports
• As for the other subjects I would like as much as possible to hear the voice(s) of At-Large/ALAC. Help to build an At-Large/ALAC position and present and support it to the Board.
Pierre Dandjinou
(Kindly see the response provided to this question during the At Large Community Forum)
Alan Greenberg
I think that “balance” is the key word here. Currently the WHOIS information is used for a variety of purposes, some legitimate, some not. As long as information is completely public, there is little that can be done to protect against improper use. Moreover, it is understood that partly because of the above problem (and for other reasons), a lot of the information within WHOIS is invalid.
Following an interminable and unsuccessful process to try to “fix” WHOIS, we are now in the midst of a study phase. There are a number of formal studies that are being undertaken under the auspices of the GNSO, and a Affirmation of Commitments Review Team is just starting.
I cannot say what the proper answer is, other than ultimately, we must address both privacy needs and the needs of law enforcement (and others) who are involved in the addressing the misuse of the Internet.. I would think that TELNIC solution of addressing natural persons (human beings) differently from legal persons (companies and other organizations) is at least a part of the solution. No doubt that technology and some level of privileged access will also play a large part.
Regarding the suitability of WHOIS to accomplish its intended purpose, the answer is mixed. It is used perhaps millions of times daily and it does address a need, although clearly sometimes the answers it yields are incorrect or misleading. But if it was completely satisfying the needs, we would not have spend a large part of the last decade trying to fix it. So the answer is mixed.
One area that is not currently addressed at all is the ability of WHOIS to accept multiple languages and scripts and allow that information to be retrieved in a meaningful way. The overall Internet is finally starting to address Unicode and IDN issues and WHOIS is lagging badly behind. Note that this does not just impact IDN domains, but any domain that is registered using some language/script other than English.
Does WHOIS need to be fixed, replaced, discarded or left untouched? Well, certainly not untouched! I will leave it to a more detailed analysis to address how to change it once we figure out what we want to do.
I would suggest, only half jokingly, that perhaps we need to change the name. WHOIS has such a bad reputation at the moment that no matter what we do, if we keep the same name, it will be somewhat tarnished.
7. What initiatives will you *personally* undertake to increase ICANN's transparency and accountability?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Try as much as possible to stay connected to ALSs, RALOS and ALAC.
Pierre Dandjinou
I should personally communicate with the community, and explain what the Board does; I will also work within the board special committee dealing with transparency and accountability. Finally, as a Board director, I will always urge the CEO to abide by the standard auditing processes.
Alan Greenberg
I certainly plan to personally be as open with the At-Large community (and everyone) as rules, process and time commitments allow. Over that, a single Director cannot unilaterally change how things are done. However the atmosphere is primed for change in this area (due to the AoC, the ATRT, and general unrest over the perceived lack of transparency and accountability), so as a Director, I plan to continue to identify areas where I think improvements are needed and work towards remedies.
8. Do end-users and registrants have rights within ICANN? Should they? If you answered yes to either, state how you would encourage the rest of the board to effect this.
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Yes
All the Board members will be (and I am sure there were) encouraged by the role more and more important taken by At-Large/ALAC to the policies processes. If I am elected to the Board by the At-Large I will use any opportunity to show/explain to the other board members the role taken by the ALSs, the RALOs and ALAC.
Pierre Dandjinou
Since end users and registrants are those who consume and pay for domain name services, they actually are the one building the resource base of the registries which ultimately provide resources to the ICANN. Thus, end users and registrants have rights within ICANN. The issue is how to best organize those end users and registrants so that they could know their rights, and stand up for them! The ALS is one conduit, but I believe one will need a more holistic and inclusive approach to this. I will encourage the rest of the Board to understand and buy into that belief by engaging in discussions and inviting them to meet members of the ALS in their respective regionsCandidate has not yet submitted answers.
Alan Greenberg
I am not a lawyer, and certainly not one with specific knowledge of the law in the jurisdictions where ICANN operates. I am also not quite sure what the phrase “rights within ICANN” means. All of that being said, I suspect that end-users and registrants have few DIRECT rights within the ICANN processes, other than to lodge complaints if applicable.
...
Unfortunately the history shows that the accountability of the ALAC liaison to the Board was not always easy to fulfill.
I hope to be able to build in this new role a process to stay engage with At-Large.
In addition see the discussion of that in NARALO question N° 18).
Pierre Dandjinou
to build in this new role a process to stay engage with At-Large.
In addition see the discussion of that in NARALO question N° 18).
Pierre Dandjinou
Yes, I will commit to an engagement with the At large community once elected on the Board, as I do believe seat 15 is a special one. I will strive to find ways and means for keeping in touch with community and engage in possible programmes. And, if I am incapable of meeting those commitment, I will consider my mission is not possible and draw my conclusionCandidate has not yet submitted answers.
Alan Greenberg
The bulk of this question has already been addressed with respect to the AFRALO Question, the APRALO Questions 4 and 6 and EURALO Question 2 (and perhaps others).
...
