Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Vote Early, Vote Often 58

Posted by michael from the if-you-can-vote-at-all dept.
ICANN's At-Large Elections are now underway. If you were lucky enough to be able to get through during the registration process, and then lucky enough to actually receive your PIN in the mail, congratulations, you can vote. Click through for your FREE Slashdot voter's guide... :)

There is actually a great deal of information available about these elections and the candidates - it puts the U.S. presidential elections to shame, quite frankly.

Where to Vote: ICANN's online voting site

When to Vote: Now until midnight (GMT), Oct. 10.

Who to Vote For: That's a little less straightforward. Here's some resources to help you decide.

The groups above recommend a voting slate of Lessig first, followed by Simons, followed by Auerbach, for the North American seat (you get to rank all seven candidates in order of your preference). Here's my recommendation, slightly different from the above:

  1. Auerbach - Auerbach understands DNS, and he understands the civil liberty issues, and he has paid a LOT of attention to ICANN, and he understands - right now - how to fix its main problems. The other recommended candidates (Simons and Lessig) have the potential to understand ICANN as well as he does, but he has already put in the study time! I picked Auerbach as my first choice.
  2. Simons - Simons understands the civil liberty issues, and has spent a lot of time in this sort of political environment, and has the potential to understand ICANN inside and out, but she hasn't put the time in yet. I picked her second.
  3. Lessig - Lessig is a smart guy. I don't think he comes with as solid a commitment to civil liberties as the others, and I don't think he has any special understanding of DNS issues. Of course he's bright enough to understand anything he puts his mind to, but why distract him from the 20 other things he's undertaking (such as joining EFF as a board member recently). Lessig gets my third choice.
  4. Tiller - Tiller is sort of a wildcard. From what he says, he would be a civil-liberties oriented candidate, but I had never heard of him before the elections, so he's a bit of a dark horse to me. Still, he beats the remaining candidates hands-down.
  5. Langenberg - Langenberg seems like he would be a fairly ineffective candidate, no civil liberties focus, not (obviously) captured by IP interests or anything else. But we don't need an ineffective candidate.
  6. Chapin - Chapin earns the second-to-last spot. He works for Verizon and can be expected to promote policies that would benefit the major telcos, as if they didn't have enough representation already.
  7. Miller - Miller is dead last. President of the ITAA, he represents all that is wrong with ICANN right now, and states flat out that he thinks they've done a great job to date and he would continue the path taken so far. If you think ICANN is right on track, vote for Miller. Bleh.

Vote!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vote Early, Vote Often More

Vote Early, Vote Often

Comments Filter:
  • Not necessarily true. EFF has made some extremely poor choices in the past, and in fact just got done with purging some of them. I don't think Lessig is a poor choice, but joining EFF's board is not a guarantee of a strong commitment to civil liberties.

    --
    Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
  • It's not a stupid question at all -- it's a very good one.

    I don't know exactly what ICANN's official duties are, but my understanding is that they're quite limited, in the grand scheme of things. Sure, there's the issue of domain name squating, dispute resolution policies, etc., which are quite important. But if that were all I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

    The problem is this: ICANN is "the internet governing body" to the press. There are a lot of global issues re: the net that need to be resolved, and, assuming the US doesn't decide it's Supreme Ruler of the World, there isn't a clear place to go to get answers to these questions. (Not that I mean to imply that the US is a clear place to go for answers -- far from it.)

    So you tell me what happens when there are issues to be resolved, no one around to resolve them, and a bunch of bozos in the press talking about ICANN as "the internet governing body"?

    I'll tell you: ICANN makes a polite suggestion as to how to deal with the problem, one that (intentionaly, or, more likely IMHO, un-intentionaly) puts the 'net more under their control. No one else has a better claim to be making the decision, and so, almost by default, ICANN wins out. Just as, in physics, nature abhors a vacuum, in politics, power abhors a vacuum. So, like it or not, I expect ICANN's power to slowly increase over time, moving into new areas that currently have little or nothing to do with ICANN.

    To be honest, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. There *are* issues to be resolved in a net-wide way, and I don't think that any of the other international bodies are a good fit for the job. Can you imagine the UN taking a role? Or, worse yet, but more likely, the WTO? Not if I have anything to say about it.

    ICANN at least makes a *pretense* at being open to direct influence by individuals, and, with work, we can improve on that. That's why, IMHO, it's incredibly important that we be aware of what's going on, and, if possible, get in on the ground floor here so that we have a say as to how ICANN develops.

  • My opinion (Score:4)

    by harvardian ( 140312 ) on Thursday October 05, 2000 @07:30AM (#729604)
    I went to the debate at the Berkman Center (note: Langenberg did not show up, probably because it was a pay-for-yourself event, so all 7 candidates were not there), and here are my impressions of how the candidates performed live:

    Auerbach: Understands the issues backwards and forwards, he's an engineer who knows what's up. My two problems with him are a) he owns so much private stuff (his own internet company or two, his wife's internet company, his stock in Oracle or whatever place he works for) that he could have some conflicts of interest, and b) he is definitely lacking in the public speaking arena. He often loses sight of the larger issues and focuses too much on the technicalities, leaving people to think sometimes "yes that's nice, but what are you talking about?" Vote for him if you insist on your candidate having the most technical knowledge possible.

    Simons: she's my favorite. She understands the civil liberty issues like /. said, and I think this is the most important part. Technical information she will be able to get from people like Auerbach, and she showed that she at least has the capacity to know whom to believe (she believed Auerbach without question that we could have millions of TLDs, for example.) She'd defend slashdot-like values by far the most in my opinion.

    Lessig: a reaaaaally smart guy (he was a law prof at Harvard and now Stanford), he knows what's going on legally. What's more he understands perfectly his vision of ICANN and its legal implications -- specifically that ICANN should keep its focus extremely narrow in order to increase its mandate. My problem with him is that I don't agree with making ICANNs scope so narrow. When it comes to trademark disputes, for example, Lessig was dissapointed in ICANNs trademark board, he says this should be the role of government, while Simons said that while she agrees, the ICANN trademark board is far superior to existing structures and therefore should be kept. I think Lessig is obsessed too much with keeping down ICANN to its original and extremely limited charter and doesn't understand how ICANN will have to grow with the times.

    Tiller: /. was very right in calling this guy a wildcard. He believes SOLELY in representing the masses. Not the educated masses, the masses. He reminds me of Bush. If you vote for him know that he will only take into view what joe sixpack will want. I also wasn't convinced at all that he understands the legal issues involved. At least he was open-minded and nice.

    Langenberg: wasn't at the debate so I have no idea.

    Chapin: He's a very smart guy, and his views are actually pretty good. But as /. says working for Verizon disqualifies him.

    Miller: this guy sucked my ass. He's annoying as hell, he would interrrupt people, and he has absolutely NO idea what he's talking about. He's nervous and he gibbers and he managed to piss most of the panel off because of his intense incompetence. Vote for this guy if you want a lemming politician who understands less than nothing.

  • Re:Langenberg works for me (Score:3)

    by Wellspring ( 111524 ) on Thursday October 05, 2000 @10:05AM (#729605)

    I'd vote last for Langenberg. Read his responses to the questionnaire. I mean, this isn't an apprenticeship. When he learns something about the Internet, and generates some reasonable opinions, then we can take a look at him. This isn't open-mindedness, this is ignorance. I'd much prefer the other candidates, who put their opinions on the table. Who will teach him about DNS issues? What conclusions will he come to once he's informed? Answer: Why risk it?

    First and foremost, we need people with a technical understanding of the internet. Fortunately, most of them have it (Lessig, for instance, doesn't). Then, we need someone with a procedural understanding of the internet. Almost all have that as well (Lessig is strong here). Finally, we need to look at what values they have drawn about the direction of ICANN-- and how effectively they will pursue them.

    Truth be told, I can't find myself straying from /.'s recommendations. I disagree most of the political stuff I've heard from them, but they seem to be totally on target when it comes to ICANN's 'election'. I'd rank Lessig a little lower, just because I'm more worried about his time/knowledge constraints, and Chapin a little higher (I don't think his employment matters). But that's just poking around here and there. Frankly, if people vote as listed above, they'd be doing just fine.

    As for Auerbach, I can't see what isn't to like about him. gTLD anarchy is fine with me... but then again, I want to burn all TLDs. And as for disagreement-- with the state that ICANN is in, to the point where 'members' are not legally members, and the 'election' is not legally an election--- we need active and forceful representation. Especially because ICANN seems to want to become the Government of the Internet (though they strenuously deny it).

    This may be the only election ICANN has. At Yokohama, they tried to kill @Large elections altogether, and have constantly worked to make them irrelevent. Any truly effective representation will require some confrontation from the candidates-- and support from the constituencies who elect them once the real debates begin.

  • No problem! I applied a while ago and it worked fine. I think /.'s recommendations make sense, but will think a bit harder before actually voting...

  • I seriously doubt that anyone who *managed* to get registered is a /. zombie...

    I know I'm not.

    t_t_b
    --
    I think not; therefore I ain't®

  • Well, as a dutiful ICANN "member at large" I researched the candidates, voted, and am done. (Incidentally, I didn't have any problems voting -- whatever they were doing wrong they had fixed when I voted (I hope))

    Note the past tense. I voted. Already. This "voting guide" is a little late. Sheesh -- get on the ball guys.

  • Who cares who runs the ICANN? It's organizations like the courts who decide domain name disputes, and large corporations like AOL and MS (digitaldiva vs. digitaldivas anyone) that fight and win these sorts of things. Other than that, what does ICANN do, and who cares anyway?
  • Bull...Shit!

    Don't be utterly stupid. Running a few name lookups and zone transfers on a couple of DNS servers which have been loaded with a couple of million top level domains does not remotely simulate the real Internet.

    I don't give a flying fsck if not one member of the board dispute that 'fact', how many of them run DNS servers? It's a bloody stupid idea.

  • The negativity just festers in you, man.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Yes, civil liberties is involved. (Score:3)

    by number11 ( 129686 ) on Thursday October 05, 2000 @07:56AM (#729613)
    One civil liberties issue is how ICANN handles disputes regarding trademarks (the "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" or "UDRP"). Under current policies, you can lose your domain name because some Fredonian lawyer complains that it violates his client's trademark for their line of spittoons. Even if it's a common name like "Smith" or "American", or merely contains that trademark string internally (a la "arrowSMITH.com"). This happens is because ICANN currently encourages such abuses.

    I don't know whether you'd consider ICANN's penchant for meeting in secret, or the fact that their board is stacked with representatives of narrow commercial interests (as opposed to the public or users) civil liberties issues, or the fact that they make the name, address, and phone number of domain holders available to any spammer who wants it (while keeping the voter list secret so that candidates cannot access it). But they could be.

    Another civil liberties issue is the way this election has been conducted (whether caused by malice or mere incompetence). Such as hastily meeting before the election and cutting the number of elected seats in half, to ensure that the incumbents would not face a serious challenge no matter who got elected. Such as the disenfranchisement of large numbers of voters because of failure to provide a server that could handle the load of registrations. Such as an ungainly and confusing registration procedure (hell, it me about 10 tries to figure out that the string "PIN-" was part of my PINumber, but maybe I'm exceptionally dense.. I'm sure those extra characters immensely improve the security). Such as failure to mail out PINs by snail mail in a timely fashion. Such as changing the election rules after the election had begun, to try to prevent publicly nominated candidates from reaching the threshold necessary to challenge their hand-picked nominees.

  • Hardly! It's the last day to vote, and I for one still haven't - now where the ($*#@($*@#$ did I put that damn PIN?
  • Are you saying that NetSol won't get their $9 off of each domain registered with the new TLD's? Aren't they still controlling the main root servers?

    When I registered my domains with register.com (or whoever it was) they took my $15 bucks per, but they had to pony up $9 to NSI. So what, are these new companies that are going to be taking care of the new domains going to set up their own root servers?

    I'm not saying you're wrong, but if NSI still gets their $9, I don't know that they would be too upset with having a million new TLD's opened up. If they don't get their cut, then I can see your point, but how's the whole DNS-root-servers-talking-to-each-other thing going to work out? Anyone know?
    --
    Looking for a job [hotjobs.com]
  • Really, though, there is something to protest in this election. Whatever you may think of ICANN, nobody should vote for the board-nominated candidates. Dyson and the board have stacked the field in favor of the sort of candidates they like. We should send them a message that this sort of ballot-stacking is unacceptable, and vote only for self-nominated candidates. In North America, that means Auerback, Simons or Tiller.

    For more info, see ICANNnot [icannnot.org].

    Also, everyone should check out alternatives, like OpenNIC [unrated.net]


    Matt Bandy
    Scientist
    "Let my obsolescence blossom and propagate..."

  • Karl is a lawyer. (Score:3)

    by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Thursday October 05, 2000 @06:49AM (#729617) Homepage
    Karl is a lawyer. He happens to work as a techie because he enjoys that more.
    -russ
  • Having someone technical does help, but it's not an end-all/be-all attribute.

    Many technical people don't understand civil liberties.

    "
    Big deal, Mattel shuts down some hackers breaking their copyright."
    or
    "big deal etoys.com is shutting down a porno sight that toy buyers might get confused with"
    But, they don't realize the ramifications of those issues. Or some of the detailed legal analysis that an implication of some of the rules, regulations, and laws that are written. Hell, Congress didn't realize the extent of ERISA preemption when writing the ERISA laws. Or the simple analysis of disability under the ADA.

  • Well, I meant "He's smart, honest, and principled," but you knew that.
  • The main problem with ICANN seems to be its ineffective safeguards against allowing large corporate trademark holders to commit reverse domain name hijacking. Hence, the freedom to protest and comment on public issues is more limited. Further, the high cost of getting new TLDs is not conducive to the little guy having any control over the new namespace.
  • That's what I tried for. Those are links to all of the places that I know of that ventured opinions on the ICANN elections. Some of them like Lessig, some like Auerbach better, some didn't make recommendations but just posed questions to the candidates.

    My question to Ron Harwood is why is it necessary to attack slashdot for imaginary faults?

    --
    Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
  • ...and I now know how I must vote...

    Sheesh, c'mon why don't you tell us how you really feel about the candidates?

  • Re:Okay this may sound stupid (Score:3)

    by Parity ( 12797 ) on Thursday October 05, 2000 @07:57AM (#729623)
    The current plan (as I understand it, which is admittedly not well) is pretty much exactly what you're saying: Add TLDs like .shop and .ecom and .biz and .bank... and then give trademark holders of domains first-chance... so, microsoft will immediately buy microsoft.shop, microsoft.ecom, microsoft.biz, microsoft.bank, microsoft.sucks... etc. That's fine for microsoft, but what about 'southwest airlines'? they'd probably buy southwest.everything-except-.bank-and-maybe-that-t oo.
    I'm sure there are other 'trademarks' that are common words and really only trademarks in a particular sphere of business. 'Disney' and 'Microsoft' and 'Coca-Cola' are obviously universal trademarks. Any-way.
    The civil liberties issues are, what if somebody's asleep at the helm and I sneak in and buy microsoft.sucks and put up a parody site. Can Microsoft insist that the domain is under their trademark and have ICANN transfer ownership? Is that a violation of free speech? (Technically 'no' because this is a business transaction not a legal one, but in practice it's a -supression- of speech.) What about etoy/etoys type suppression-by-trademark where a domain just gets deactivated? If my last name is miller and I get miller.per what protections to I really have from miller beer?

    An-yway, the solution to all this in -my- mind is to use the geographical system... granted, 'slashdot.holland.mi.us' doesn't sound as spiffy as 'slashdot.org' or 'slashdot.dot' but it neatly sidesteps the whole trademark thing. Unless, of course, the administrator of holland.mi.us happens to be an idiot, but hey, we -know- the people at the top of the .com/.net/.org domains are idiots and the neat thing about the geographical domains is they're inherently unmonopolizable. (no more than 10 domains per administrator, I seem to recall, so if holland.mi.us's administrator were some sort of corporate lackey who refused to cooperate with slashdot, just get slasdot..mi.us or some other 'nearby large city' that isn't unreasonable to put yourself in.


    --Parity
  • That doesn't solve any problems, it just makes it more expensive and shifts it in to the court system. If you buy microsoft.dot (to use Rob's TLD) and build a p0rn site out of it do you honestly think they are going to let that go without saying or doing something about it? They're going to sue you and make you spend money on lawyers. Yours is an argument for abolishing TLDs and just going to straight domains, not for thousands or unlimited TLDs. If unlimited TLDs is the seemless pathway there then I see it as a solution provided that the goal it to do away with modern 1990s and 2000s domains and shift the importance from microsoft.com to .microsoft. That still won't solve anything if I was to but .microsoft before they did, I'm going to get sued, and I should.
  • Simons: she's my favorite. She understands the civil liberty issues like /. said, and I think this is the most important part. Technical information she will be able to get from people like Auerbach, and she showed that she at least has the capacity to know whom to believe (she believed Auerbach without question that we could have millions of TLDs, for example.) She'd defend slashdot-like values by far the most in my opinion.

    We bloody well shouldn't have 'millions of TLDs'. Can you imagine the fscking chaos? Can you imagine the time systems spend performing what are essentially full table scans through the (now flat) list of names? Doh! FFS, the DNS system is heirachical for a reason and you want to turn it in to a big /etc/hosts file?

    ICANN needs technical people. Not lawyers or politicians or business people who have no fscking idea of the implications of what they are doing.

  • Why you should vote for Barbara Simons (Score:5)

    by Ellen Spertus ( 31819 ) on Thursday October 05, 2000 @07:16AM (#729626) Homepage

    Some reasons to vote for Barbara Simons [simons.org]:

    1. Decades of activism: Barbara Simons has received the highest activist awards (EFF Pioneer 1998, CPSR Weiner Award 1992).

    2. Leadership: Led the ACM (president 1998-2000) and USACM [acm.org]. Of all the nominees, I think she has the strongest proven ability to deal effectively with committees and opponents both in and out of government.

    3. Computer science expertise: She has a CS PhD from Berkeley, has held senior research positions, been made a fellow of the ACM, AAAS, etc.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • As has been pointed out repeatedly, the ICANN At-Large positions are largely for show -- they have little direct influence. Don't think of the ICANN At-Large member as a Senator, but rather as a Offical Spokesperson. Therefore, it matters much more that the At-Large rep be persuasive than that they be the most competent. Sending someone who has a complete grasp of the engineering issues, but can't persuade the people who hold real power, is a complete waste of time.

    Lessig has by far the highest public profile of any of the seven, and a higher profile than all but of few ICANNers. The makes him the most likely *effective* candidate, even if others have greater technical expertise or a more passionate commitment to civil liberties.

    Politics is the art of the possible.

  • How many others have yet to get all the information required to login? (Deadline was back in September) Who else is not getting responses from ICANN in timely fashion?

  • (Incidentally I voted Simons, Lessig, Auerbach, in that order. The others I left blank. If I could do it over, I think I would add Chapin fourth, ahead of Dr. Tiller.)

    I think you're giving Lyman Chapin a raw deal. He "works" for Verizon in the sense that he's a longtime employee (Chief Scientist) at BBN, which has been bought out so frequently in the last five years that it's no longer even news.

    I also think Chapin is more of a technologist than you give him credit for. I was at the ICANN forum at HLS Monday night, and Chapin's answers sounded the most like Karl Auerbach's of any of the candidates. The difference is that Chapin is less radical -- he sees more shades of grey in the issues. Which is what has always bothered me a little about Auerbach: he is so combative that I am afraid he will be entirely ineffective as a board member. Since the at-large representation is so tiny compared the size of the board, would-be revolutionaries must be careful, subtle, and cunning.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Nader for ICANN!!!!

    Yeah! First on his list will be to establish .recall and .sucks TLDs! No more racing to register VerizonSucks.com [verizonsucks.com] (owned by Verizon) or VerizonReallySucks.com [verizonreallysucks.com] (owned by 2600). Now you can register Verizon.sucks!

  • Just to point out that it's not all that clear about what's "obviously" a universal trademark. "Disney" is a personal surname, should others who share it be blocked from using it in their domain name? While "Coca-Cola" is probably universal, "coke" is the generic name for several products, some legal. While "Microsoft" may be a unique name, "MS" is a term used in several fields.
  • Auerbach wasn't saying that there SHOULD be millions of TLDs. Don't put words into his mouth. He never said that ICANN should register millions of TLDs simply because it can.

  • Re:Auerbach first (Score:3)

    by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Thursday October 05, 2000 @08:32AM (#729636) Homepage
    Well, the reason Karl said what he said is because some people (namely NSI) have claimed that there are technical reasons why we should limit the number of gTLD's. In context, he's saying that what matters are the social concerns.

    You seem to feel that the number of gTLDs should be limited. Why? Are you an NSI stockholder?
    -russ
  • ...is that he is President of ITAA (and we know how organizations ending in "AA" behave).
    Honesty I do not think Lawrence Lessig [everything2.com] got enough credit. I watched and heard him debate with Jack Velenti last week and his argument in many ways seemed parallel the views of RMS (and we all know RMS is never wrong).
    Lessig is undoubtedly more knowledgeable than any of the other candidates in the legal field and probably more intelligent. Legal knowledge is especially important in forming policies for litigious American society. I think it is better to have an intelligent person who may be less familiar with some specific issues than someone less intelligent who may not see the enduring consequences of their actions.
  • Auerbach himself, the technical expert, is the one who says he has personally been involved in tests that prove that the system can definitely handle millions of TLDs. Not one single person on the board disputed that. They called analysis such as yours, that the system wouldn't be able to handle millions of TLDs, a "red herring." Watch the video tapes, I was there.

    Whether or not having millions of TLDs is a GOOD thing is entirely up to debate.
  • I voted for Chapin and Miller 5th and 6th with Langenberg in last place. I recommend that others do the same despite Chapin and Miller's views that ICANN is doing well so far. Why? Well, the following is an excerpt from his answers to the questionnaire [internetde...roject.org] that the Internet Democracy project sent all candidates. This first question dealt with the candidates view of the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Dispute Policy:

    I'M SORRY, BUT I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE UDRP AND HOW IT WAS DEVELOPED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

    Folks, just about every one of Langenberg's answers [internetde...roject.org] is along the lines of "I don't know," "I've never heard of that," etc. From his answers, I just can't comprehend why the guy is even running. He doesn't seem to know anything about ICANN or even care about what they do.

    From his statements, I feel that the guy is such a wildcard that I would actually prefer the candidates who espouse views I disagree with to somoebody who hasn't even bothered to look at the issues. I'm pretty sure that either Auerbach or Lessig will win, but if it came down to a choice between Langenberg, Miller, and Chapin, I would definitely prefer somebody who had actually studied the issues to somebody who knows nothing. Langenberg's lack of any knowledge whatsoever about the issues could be used to prove a point about the innefectiveness of At-Large members.

    For these reasons, I suggest that voters put him dead last in your voting order.

    Does anyone have a clue why ICANN even nominated the guy?

    BTW, *everybody* should take a close look at the positions espoused by the nominees from Asia and Africa on the IDP site. Their positions on ICANN are much different than those of the American and European counterparts!

    /EJS

  • Shut up!!! The chief moron here is Mr. Anonymous Coward!

    There is a real company Miller Brewing [millerbrewing.com] in Milwaukee, WI.

  • Well, apparently most of the readers. And that's cool.
    But where are the European, Asian, African, and what not other regions that ICANN has?
    I do not have a clue yet who to vote for, and the only resource I got is the ICANN webpages.
    It would be nice if /. included other readers besides the north american kind.
  • Other than endoresement of PICS, what recent poor/ani-civil liberties decisons has the EFF made?
    Sam TH
  • Yes he fscking does. He wants thousands registered per year.
  • I'm hereby organizing the protest against the fact that Ralph Nader isn't included in your election. It's sick how educated people can limit the field to their "chosen" candidates and ignore viable third-party candidates like Nader.

    Tell me, what will your candidates do for the environment? And will they act for social responsibility? I don't care if they understand DNS. Nader for ICANN!!!!

  • I disagree with Michael. I respect Auerbach greatly, but I think the issues facing ICANN in the future are going to be primarily legal and political rather than technical, and I think Lessig has far more experience in this regard. Whatever ICANN does today is going to set a precedent for Internet governance down the road, and the power of policymakers on the Net will only grow with the increasing role of the Net in everyday life. Having a law professor who understands the dangers of legislative capture by private interests can't be a bad thing. Also, I think Lessig is more likely to work for consensus within the board.
  • Karl Auerbach's campaign web site is at: http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/index.htm.

    Damn that guy's cool... After I get off work today, I'm going home, grabbing my PIN, and voting for him...
    --

  • EFF and civil liberties (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Lessig - Lessig is a smart guy. I don't think he comes with as solid a commitment to civil liberties as the others, and I don't think he has any special understanding of DNS issues. Of course he's bright enough to understand anything he puts his mind to, but why distract him from the 20 other things he's undertaking (such as joining EFF as a board member recently). Lessig gets my third choice.

    I'm not sure what you think the EFF does, but I think anyone who joins the EFF as a board member has an extremely solid commitment to civil liberties.

  • Seriously, he is the epitome of everything that is wrong with ICANN. Every day, the AOL servers are either hacked or tampered with by the resident L337 H4X0Rs lurking on the AOL network [observers.net]. AOL is the official laughing stock of the Internet; in "Weird" Al Yankovic's song, "All about the Pentiums," there's a line which says something like "...and you go and post me like some brain-dead AOL'er." IMHO, AOL should be shut down and replaced with a standardized dial-up ISP.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 05, 2000 @06:44AM (#729649)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Yeah, we can replace Steve Case with Ion Storm's Stevie Case, for a new, sexier ICANN.

    ----------

  • I have no clue what I am doing when it comes to this... hell I am not sure I would be able to make an informed choice when ordering my lunch.

    However, here me people of the world, when I tell you that I will say NO to taxes! (not sure what good it will do...but I'll say no anyway). I will balance the budget and bring it to a null balance... for any country that has one. I will give your mothers pro-choice... even after birth (20 to 30 year cap on time to act)... as long as those mothers want that choice. I'll personally shoot Bill Gates and force Steve Balmer to code for open source projects.....

    Hell, I'll pretty much say anything you want me to if you put me in that office.

    Vote Me, simply because you want to get back at the man.

    (Paid for by The People To Elect An Ass Committee)
  • Normally I'd say great idea, we need open mindedness. But if he has being paying attention to any of the shenanigans that the WIPO has been pulling, and how they rubberstamp the corporate interests that fly by them, we need to have someone who is closeminded to the WIPO and all they represent.

    Also, this list above represents the people who are most likely to fix the registration servers so next time I might be able to vote.
  • Mmmm... beer...

  • Okay this may sound stupid (Score:3)

    by Mr T ( 21709 ) on Thursday October 05, 2000 @06:47AM (#729654) Homepage
    but what exactly are the civil liberties issues at stake here? Is this simply about getting additional TLDs? How is that a civil liberty? Or is the civil liberty issue one of something greater? The pro-"civil liberties" candidates seem to be pro-many-TLDs and anti-ICANN-policy. Maybe I'm totally missing the picture but if ICANN practiced just a tiny bit of policy then the TLD issue would be moot or at least a much smaller issue.

    In 5 years are we going to be petitioning for meta-TLDs or "Even-higher-level-domains (EHLDs?) I don't fully understand what the problem is that more TLDs fixes because anyone who owns a .com/.net/.org group and has some kind of brand name to protect is going to prevent you from using it with any other TLD so the number of choices isn't really that much greater.

  • If there are thousands or hundreds of thousands of TLDs - effectively unlimited - then trademark holders will not be able to police them all, and with the artificial scarcity eliminated, domain squatting will cease to have value as well. It neatly solves several major problems at once.

    --
    Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
  • I highly recommend voting for Karl Auerbach. It's smart, honest, and principled.
    -russ
  • Unless the story was meant to be an editorial - bias/opinions are a bad thing.

    Watch now as many /. zombies that are registered to vote toddle off to vote exactly as you said you would - you've made it easy for them to not have to think now. "Hmm, that /. author must know what's what 'cause /. is cool..."

    I must say though that I do appreciate a /. author who actually reads the comments - bravo.

  • Innovations should be chosen by 20-year Neterans (Score:3)

    by lwagner ( 230491 ) on Thursday October 05, 2000 @07:25AM (#729658)

    I'm still laughing at this.

    Some no-name, generic people who barely know what the DNS is are being chosen to attach "innovations" to the Internet by a committee of voters that most of us (who actually understand what is going on) can't even join.

    Were it up to me, TLDs and the architecture of the Internet would be decided by seasoned, 20 year veterans of networking. People who program, people who hack (in the positive sense of the word), people who have a wealth of understanding in technology.

    I'm 24; I've used the Internet since 1991 and GNU/Linux since it was .9... but someone who is 44 and has 20 more years of historical experience in how things (UNIX, networking, etc. etc.) were before I came on the scene is infinitely more beneficial to the direction of the Internet than I am. Choosing a politician, lawyer, or businessperson who happened to be at the right place, who barely understands the technology, and who "understands civil liberties" (yah, don't we all...) seems to be a bad move for the future, even if simply setting a precedent for the type of people that "should" occupy the position.

    Lucas



    --
  • Release early, release often? ^^;;
    --
    Peace,
    Lord Omlette
    ICQ# 77863057

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close