DRNC Newsletter - April/May 2002
The DNRC Newsletter is a list of important events taking place regarding domain name, or other Internet issues that we think are important to the Internet community. If you have any additions you'd like to make, or comments on the newsletter, please write to admin at netpolicy dot com.
17 April, 2002
ICANN issues reply to Karl Auerbach/EFF Lawsuit
The ICANN staff took a nasty turn as the lawsuit filed by Karl Auerbach was answered. Auerbach, one of the only elected members of the ICANN Board of Directors, filed suit to get "unfettered" access to the ICANN's budget records. The answer predictably disagrees with the embattled director. In a nutshell, the ICANN reply claims that Auerbach should agree to sign a "gag order" or similar instrument before he is allowed to inspect the financial records of the company of which he is a director, because they essentially question his loyalties.
The gag order is presented by ICANN staff as "reasonable procedures for inspections that safeguard the interests of the corporation" and as "reasonable procedures to protect its confidential information from unauthorized public disclosure."
The reply was filled with completely irrelevant information intended to discredit Auerbach personally, including the number of occasions Auerbach did not vote with the board majority, and claims outright that Auerbach's directorship has been treated as "hostile" by the rest of ICANN. "During the process leading to the elections, Auerbach made it clear that he did not want ICANN to grow, and that he viewed ICANN as a loathsome, secretive body that desperately needed to be 'remodeled,' 'overhauled,' 'dismembered' and 'reformed.'" Apparently, North America agreed with Auerbach, as he was elected to his directorship precisely because of those views. Interestingly enough, the ICANN reply goes on to list (among other offenses) that Auerbach openly stated that he was going to ensure that the corporation followed the rules under which it was granted 501(c)(3) tax exempt status in its conduct. This is implied by ICANN to be a hostile act rather than one made in the best interests of the corporation.
But wait, there's more. The ICANN corporate guidelines for confidentiality, created long after Auerbach requested access to the financial records, are cited as proof that Auerbach might wish to see them as "bad faith." ICANN notes that one other director who wished to see what he was voting on actually DID follow the procedures. What ICANN doesn't make clear, however, is that the other director WROTE the procedures. Perhaps the most amazing part about this is that only ONE director besides Auerbach has even tried to see these records. It is incredible to fathom that no one else of the Board of Directors, individuals that would be held personally responsible as a fiduciary of the corporation, was even interested in its finances. One may also wonder whether staff members who have obviously read these documents, have been required to sign any type of confidentiality statements, or even employment agreements. Staff members are definitely a more "dangerous" bunch as they do not have the legally mandated fidicuary responsibility that a director has to a corporation.
We could obviously say more, but most DNRC readers are well aware of ICANN's consistent battle to keep the public out of its public benefit corporation. Ther e definitely will be a lot more to this case in future.
18 April 2002
A Disturbing Incident in Ghana
At the Ghana meeting of the New TLD Evaluation Task Force, Stuart Lynn, president of ICANN ejected a member without explanation.
In a letter posted to the Noncommercial constituency today, Ms. YJ Park, former Names Council representative, former Chair of the DNSO Review Working Group, and current member of the President's New TLD Evaluation Task Force reports that she was denied participation in the New TLD TF meetings in Accra ..." and was asked to leave "...by ICANN President and CEO Stuart Lynn, and that after repeated requests she has been unable to secure the minutes for that meeting.
For the discussion here, this is simply an example of how a closed system can function. From any outsiders perspective, this might be a reasonable move on the part of the ICANN leadership, but is also might be exactly the sort of action that every critic of ICANN fears. If the Internet were a card game, and suddenly one participant said "this hand, you can not watch me deal" you can bet the bets would be placed suspiciously if at all. In any event, if minutes were produced, we might know the real story.
19 April, 2002
News in Brief from Australia
Legal action was brought against the Internet Name Group (ING) by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which charged ING with "misleading and deceptive" conduct. Essentially, ING has been accused of exploiting small domain name holders by playing on their lack of education about domain name issues. This highlights the need for further education for individuals and small business owners who wish to secure domain names.
20 April, 2002
LSU Sues Student
A student in his second year at LSU found his non commercial website to be the subject of a lawsuit by his alma mater. "Www.lsulaw.com" was allegedly diluting a trademark. Salient features of this case include the student's claim that the domain name is not for sale, it's pruely non commercial and private, and "lsulaw" is not trademarked by the school. Sound familiar?
The student's side of the story can be found at http://www.lsulaw.com/slu_law_school_is_suing_me/
22 April, 2002
ICANN Preliminary Report Released
ICANN released its preliminary report on a replacement for Verisign as dot org registry operator. It will cost a mere 35,000 to apply as an "examination fee" to be considered for the job, down from the 50,000 it cost to apply for other TLDs in ICANN's first "offering." This is viewed as "the cost of processing the application" and may have the effect of limiting the non profit groups that might be inclined to bid to control this traditional Internet zone of not for profit organizations.
22 April, 2002
On Again, Off Again At Large
Spearheaded by a contribution by a group lead by Esther Dyson, ICANN has accepted 22,000 to be deemed "at large contributions" which could also be used for "at large workers" (i.e. more staff). The "at large" that ICANN originally promised to the Internet community and to Congress would elect half of the Board, will still have no vote, very little voice, and not much more than a name, but it's a start.
24 April, 2002
Dot US Goes Live
The sell off of .US names is fast and furious, and a mad scramble to "capture" the names appears to result. Several media sources (including the Washington Post) comment on the mercantile nature of this selling of what might have been made public into private hands. The DNRC has long held that .US should have been made an experiment in free speech, and the robust use of the Internet as a communications forum for new ideas. DNRC and many others who advocated the use of .US for non commercial speech were largely ignored (see our numerous comments on this website). A great public resource has been lost.
To self inform about the .US selloff, look at the excellent discussion in Bret Fausett's ICANN blog at http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/04/23.html#a229
29 April, 2002
ICANN Reform Process Plods On
A recent letter by the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue gave its recommendations for ICANN reform and restructuring. Two running themes in the discussion are the openness of ICANN and the limiting of mission creep. Why is this one letter mentioned? This is merely one of many private or public concerns to request input into the ICANN reform process -- ranging from the Names Council and its constituencies to private and overtly outspoken critics. Some excellent ones are available at http://forum.icann.org/reform/.
The suggestions range in scope addressed and in their suggestions. Some call for the removal of ICANN outright, some call for the removal of the people running it. Some call for the United Nations to step in to limit ICANN in its scope and some call for ICANN to be expanded or to grow. As the weight of number of such suggestions increase, the ability to filter them down to elements of consensus becomes less and less for the average "Joe Internet" user who may, or may not, be aware that a series of related battles are being fought over what will become of ICANN itself.
The discussion the ICANN links to for reform is at http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/ and at http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/links.htm.
2 May, 2002
More From the ICANN Blog
Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog continues to be an excellent source of up to date and pertinent information. For example, at http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/05/02.html, there is a discussion of a new bill in the house of representatives. Again, the misguided Congress Critters, despite attempts to educate otherwise, have chosen a cannon to catch a fly. Lifted from the Blog :
The bill, H.R. 4640, is succinct. It provides that
Whoever knowingly and with intent to defraud provides material and misleading false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering a domain name shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/05/02.html
This bill provides yet another tool in the "cease and desist" arsenal which can be used to threaten innocent domain name holders. Not only can an unscrupulous attorney use the threat of 100,000 in statutory damages under the Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, but now the domain name holder can be threatened with jail as well if his or her "whois" information has lapsed, or even input incorrectly. Of course, the bill says "knowingly" and with "intent to defraud" however this would be up to the domain name holder to prove his/her innocense, as it usually turns out these days. As most small domain name holders can't pony up the funds to get a lawyer in the first place, this threat could be very real, and yet another means by which reverse hijacking can occur. Think we're wrong? Just remember that both the UDRP and the Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act require "bad faith." How many "good faith" domain name holders and web operators have had to give up their domains after baseless threats by reverse domain name hijackers, simply because they didn't have the money to defend themselves?
DNRC will try to find out the answer to that question in a new poll we are beginning. Starting May 6, 2002, you can send email to admin at netpolicy dot com and tell us your story
The Domain Name Rights Coalition
www.domain-name.org