In Support of my candidacy to ICANN nomination!

My answers to the questions posed by Alex Svensson (AS) and Thomas Roessler (TR)



AS1. Top level domains (TLDs) ... position on the new TLDs ... issues such
as trademark protection ... Speed of the addition, chartered vs.
non-chartered TLDs? ... happy with the way ICANN handled the matter until
now? ... happy with ... UDRP?



New TLDs are currently necessary. Which ones, how many and how fast is a
difficult issue. I believe that some new domains, high in the taxonomy, like
.art, .sci, .news, .eu, etc. must be rapidly implemented.

Adding new TLDs in a slow pace might be advantageous from the point of view
of stability and allows the possibility of some shift in the technology that
might completely resolve that issue. For example, if the hierarchy is
abandoned, ..., or if completely free naming systems become possible ... How
this might happen is also a very interesting PhD theme and a very complex
political issue. (Complex in the sense that it will be difficult for some
entities to abandon powers that currently have under the current technology.
Probably we will see coexistence of global nets soon in the future).

Trademarks must, for the time being, be protected. We are in a transitional
period globally and you need to have some structure to demolish. Demolishing
something chaotic produces chaos. When you have something specific (like the
trademark system) to demolish you start studying how to do it, when to do
it, etc, and this might produce interesting solutions, under the condition
of "fair play". It is certain in my mind that in the future, Internet will
transform society and economics so deeply that issues of trademarks probably
in the future will be completely differently approached!

As Marc Schneiders said "Courts are too expensive for many small business
owners or ordinary people. The time UDRP gives to file is too short too
raise funds, unless you are big".

This is the whole political issue hidden behind a technological issue
somewhat dry, i.e. "IP numbers, domain names, protocols and ports". How the
"poor" can be equal or can be made to be equal in their confrontation with
the "rich", irrespectively of who is right and who is wrong. UDRP is a good
start in theory. Needs reform. It worked for some cases; it was unfair for
many others. This question of fairness is the responsibility of ICANN, and
as Mr Schneiders said, any rules, old, or reformed ones must be "applied as
they are written and intended and not stretched to mean anything to please
the IP and TM people" ... or any strong and big lobby, company, etc. I add.


AS2. Political role ... ICANN's current and future role ... any political
role? Should and can it be prevented from playing such a role? Is it
desirable to have candidates considering possible political consequences?



Technology is politics.  And, ... magic ... as Arthur Clarke once said
(remember? ... "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic"!). Magic to whom? Not to the creators or implementers of any
technology. Magic to the eyes of the many that are uninformed or uneducated.
And here enters politics. People are responsible to be cultivated in arts
and in sciences and to understand technology. But the governors should also
be the guarantors of the "fair play". Information and opportunity should be
equally accessible to any physical person (or small businesses) as is to any
institutionalised entity (and to the large businesses).

So, is ICANN part of the "governors"? What do you think? I think yes! As
long as technology needs the naming hierarchy (or as long as it is made to
need that hierarchy), ICANN has political power, and anyone involved is a
political person. ICANN cannot be prevented from any political role. In any
possible organizational structure, ICANN will have political role, and the
healthiest thing to do is to accept it from the beginning and not try to
hide it. If sometime, somehow, or somewhere the fact that ICANN is political
is hidden, then, unfair influences will be hidden too. The influences will
always be there. Let them be visible! We must try to keep them visible!

It is desirable to have candidates considering possible political consequences!



AS3. Role of the At Large members ... what role should the At Large members
play in the future? Should they have any role in between the elections and
if so, which?



At large members should make their essential role the effort to enhance
their function and their influence. Increasing their influence means that
the big biz and other orgs will lower their own (probably not without
fighting back). Why this is necessary? Well, to start, for reasons of "fair
play" of course, more philosophically, for reasons of democracy, but more
importantly, I believe, for reasons of pure and simple logic!

Technology runs! It accelerates continuously (as almost everything else
around us). That means, that, probably, the technology to implement a new,
faster, more just, easier, more effective Internet is already here, or is
coming fast. The investments though, that the big biz make on current or
older technology do not pay back so fast. So, ..., they delay things! So we
try to change that. We just ask for fair play. That's all!

Hey I am not saying here that big biz is something evil. This is another
story for another email (they may be, or they may not). I am just trying to
say that as internet changes everything, so the role of big biz will be
changed too, and since I realized that probably earlier than some other
fellow netizens, I am expressing that loud and clear! The faster the future
arrives, the better!

It is obvious from what I have already said that @ large members should have
active roles in between elections. Which roles? They may for example form,
officially or unofficially, control boards, discussion forums, and support
directors that try to enhance the role of @ large members.



TR1. You are asking for a nomination ... you want to speak up for At Large
Members', that is netizens', interests ... What are these interests, as far
as ICANN's field of activity is affected?



For start, I agree with Mr Lutz Donnerhacke that "You should not restrict it
to the @large members ... The average netizen is much more important". So,
what is the main interest of the average netizen regarding ICANN? As I
already pointed in my answers to AS1-3, the whole point is "fair play":

Provide and secure the opportunity to every person to express himself or to
make money in or through the Internet preserving at the same time the rights
of every other person that uses the same medium. You remember of course the
old dictum from Voltaire that "my freedom ends there where yours starts".

Please, before leaving the above paragraph note that in the essence of
democracy is tolerating the existence of its enemies. That also applies for
my Internet thoughts. That's fair play! So,  if there is some group of people
with views totally against some other group, fair play means you provide
both groups with the same resources.

I really believe that the future of the current hierarchical naming and
organizational structure is short. So most probably "structures organized
from above" like ICANN, will not be present in a future internet. I believe
that self-organization will be much more important in the future. That said,
I realize that any current organizations involved, national, multinational,
or other, will try to influence technology towards a path that they consider
suits them most. Obviously the @ large members form such an (unstructured
for the moment) organization. I don't believe that the current ICANN wishes
to organize this group, but that does not mean that this will not (somehow)
happen!

Anyway, I consider my duty as an @ large member to call attention to those
"political" thoughts of mine, because, up to this point, I haven't observed
anything similar in the messages of my fellow netizens in this email list.



TR2. Do you believe there are specific European or national interests to be
protected at ICANN? Please try to define these interests, and tell us what
you think about them.



A global network, normally, does not perceive geographical limits. If
somehow geographical limits emerge, something is not completely global yet!
What is this? It is the local legal systems, the local cultures, the local
histories, the local religions, but, for the moment, during this immature
phase of the global net, language is, in my point of view, the most
important. Here comes Europe, and here comes the national interests issue!
These issues are not particularly related to Internet. They are related to
the contemporary tendency of our civilization to form higher (from the point
of view of geographical limits) clusters of cooperation, to the
globalisation of trade, and to the somewhat natural reaction of local
structures to resist their incorporation in the larger groups.

So what about ICANN? Well, the answer is easy again! Fair play! What I said
in answering TR1 also applies here:

Provide and secure the opportunity to every country, or to every local group
within a country, or to groups of countries, to express themselves or to
make money in or through the Internet preserving at the same time the rights
of every other country, or every other local group, or every other group of
countries that uses the same medium.




TR3. ICANN doesn't pay your bills ... independence from outside influence?


I believe what Mr Schneiders and Mr Donnerhacke believe, that is, that ICANN
pays some bills, like travel expenses. If this is not so, then, from my
position as a member @ large I will support any movement for changing that.

Now, for my part, since I currently have no means for paying my travel and
lodging expenses, I will either be supported by ICANN, (if it has or will
advance such a policy), or I will seek support from the government of
Greece, or from the European Union. If these actions will not end in my
favour, I will seek employment from some Greek big biz, trying to make a
contract that will leave me completely free in my decisions, (leaving
possibly the big biz, in exchange, the opportunity to exhibit having an
employee that it is an ICANN member). In any case, I now declare that I will
make public my contract in case I will be forced to seek employment in the
private sector.



TR4. What do you expect from additional gTLDs? And
TR5. What are your ideas about the introduction of such domains?



I agree with Mr Marc Lehmann when he says "More freedom, and nicer domain
names. What I do NOT expect is more freedom from law or conflicts, however".
... "If gTLDs get introduced slowly enough, new methodologies of handing
subdomains out might emerge". The idea of Mr Marc Schneiders I believe is
also interesting: "There are third-level domains and they can be used
profitably". All my answers to the above questions also satisfy TR4 and TR5.

Now, Mr Michael Bracker nicely touched a very important issue when he wrote:
"There just will be too many people who want to get the specific domains.
How will the Internet look like in 20 years? Will we be introducing new and
new TLDs? But also this way of introducing more and more of them will come
to an end one time..." As I already said in answering TR1, I don't believe
that the hierarchical naming of things will hang about for much longer.
Newer technology will allow for free names and for a global structure free
from naming hierarchy. That of course does not mean that it is necessary to
destroy any existing or any future hierarchical naming or other structure. I
am certain that future technology will allow many systems to coexist. By the
way, coexistence is also democracy.



TR6. Do you have any ideas about the future in Internet addressing you want
to speak up for at ICANN? Any ideas which may go beyond DNS as we know it
today?


In many places in my answers above I spoke about "future technology" and
"self-organization" and "freedom from hierarchical systems". I mean
hierarchies set from above from some org.  Most probably the
self-organization I am talking about will create hierarchical structures,
but not on the naming of things. I believe that complete naming freedom will
be, if it is not already, possible in the near future. I am imagining a
global net that again will have some specialized centres that will act as
large yellow pages servers that will guide signals to the correct
destinations. I am imagining a totally free naming system, with no need to
register something somewhere. You will only have to broadcast your "domain"
name and some specifics of your actual address, and then the specialized
centres will handle the rest. It is true that I am not talking OSI layers
model here, but, I am a physicist, not an engineer, so, please, fellow
netizens, let me dream!


Sincerely,
Constantine S. Chassapis


   

From: Thomas Roessler roessler@does-not-exist.org
To: icann-europe@fitug.de
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Answers to Questions by Svensson and Roessler


> On 2000-08-14 23:16:10 +0300, Constantine S. Chassapis wrote:
>
> > TR3. ICANN doesn't pay your bills ... independence from outside
> > influence?
>
> > I believe what Mr Schneiders and Mr Donnerhacke believe, that is,
> > that ICANN pays some bills, like travel expenses. If this is not
> > so, then, from my position as a member @ large I will support any
> > movement for changing that.
>
> The bylaws permit the board to pay some of the bills. I was rather
> hinking about the fact that ICANN work will consume a considerable
> amount of time and working power which won't be available for your
> usual day job.
>
> > Now, for my part, since I currently have no means for paying my
> > travel and lodging expenses, I will either be supported by ICANN,
> > (if it has or will advance such a policy), or I will seek support
> > from the government of Greece, or from the European Union. If
> > these actions will not end in my favour, I will seek employment
> > from some Greek big biz, trying to make a contract that will
> > leave me completely free in my decisions, (leaving possibly the
> > big biz, in exchange, the opportunity to exhibit having an
> > employee that it is an ICANN member). In any case, I now declare
> > that I will make public my contract in case I will be forced to
> > seek employment in the private sector.
>
> Sorry, but this doesn't sound too independent to me... Knowing
> about possible influence after the nomination and election won't
> help once that influence is exercised.


You are correct! I just have to add that I am honest; I am stating the truth
about myself and my situation, and I believe honesty is a positive thing for
a candidate to have (I can provide proof about anything that I have said
about myself if somebody asks so). Note that it would have been very easy
for me to state "self-employed" and to end this discussion. I have been
self-employed in the recent past and it is very easy for me to re-enter that
particular status.

From a philosophical standpoint note this: influences exist everywhere. Even
there where seemingly they are absent! The more secret an influence is the
more powerful is. A way to decrease the power of an influence is to make it
public, i.e. to identify it. This is the first step!

Now, with the risk to offend you, but not having this intention, I would
kindly ask you to identify yourself with two or three words (and something
about fitug.de in english), just for the symmetry of a dialogue: You know
everything about me, ...

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis

P.S. -- what do you think about my other answers, particularly my answer to
TR6?


   

From: Andreas Fόgner Andreas.Fuegner@lizenz.com
To: Constantine S. Chassapis cschassapis@acm.org
Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Answers to Questions by Svensson and Roessler


> Dear Constantine:
>
> You refere to fair play on several occasions of your email.
>
> What is your understanding of "fair play" in this context?
>
> For instance there is no private investment - small or big -
> without a chance of return.
>
> I totally agree with your statements about democracy and freedom.
> But the following?
>
> >or I will seek support from the government of
> >Greece, or from the European Union. If these actions will not end in my
> >favour, I will seek employment from some Greek big biz, trying to make a
> >contract that will leave me completely free in my decisions, (leaving
> >possibly the big biz, in exchange, the opportunity to exhibit having an
> >employee that it is an ICANN member). In any case, I now declare that I will
> >make public my contract in case I will be forced to seek employment in the
> >private sector.
>
> That is an open invitation, if not a request, to be somebodies lobbyist
> and/or
> spokes person. They should advertise that thesponsoring you?
> Just because you make it public (when, how, to whom, how often ??)
> it creates a conflict of interest sooner or later.
>
> Sorry that is not an option from my point of view.
>
> Andreas Fugner
>

I am very happy that my honesty in stating my status provoked such an
interesting dialogue. Please see in this respect my answer to Mr Thomas
Roessler. You are correct about what you are saying. I am thinking again on
how I will secure "fair play" in this context. I believe publicity is a
strong means for obtaining fair play. I am thinking ...

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis


   

Hi all,

I read in http://www.icann.org/nomcom/, the following:

The Nominating Committee identified the following key
factors to consider in making its nominations:

1. Reputation for integrity and hard work.
2. Ability to exercise independent judgment;
   willingness to disclose obligations and
   potential conflicts of interest.
3. Professional/volunteer roles and accomplishments.
4. Understanding of the Internet's architecture and
   history.
5. Experience with the Internet's architecture.
6. Specific experience with the domain name and IP
   address systems.
7. Experience in international and/or multicultural
   environments.
8. Educational background.
9. The extent to which the individual would bring
   relevant skills or experience that are otherwise
   absent from the ICANN Board.
10. Commitment: available time, energy, and interest.
11. Indications that the individual will find broad
    support in the At Large Membership.

These criteria were not meant to be decisive;
they were, however, key factors to be weighed.

Then, I asked myself where I stand in respect to
these factors?

1. I can find friends, profs, or former employers that
will certify that, but of course I cannot see how I
can prove it via email.

2. Same as answer 1.

3. Same as 1. (If scholarships are professional accompishments
I have been honoured twice. If membership in scientific, or
technical associations is a measure of professional role, then
I am member of ACM, IEEE, HWG, IWA, ICANN@Large).

4. Well, I understand things. As a matter of fact in
my site, in http://users.otenet.gr/~kchas/internet.htm
I present an introductory tutorial written in Greek.

5. Sysadmin (both on small win lans, but I have experience on
AIX machines hooked on the NCSR demokritos net). Site
admin. Awarded Web master and designer. Same as 1.

6. I own the http://amorphousart.gr domain and the amorphous.art
at name-space.com's xs2.net support (i.e.
http://amorphous.art.xs2.net also leads to my site).

7. I know very well the cultural environments of Greece,
France and Sweden. I am also well educated in the
English language and culture. That gives adequate
experience I presume.

8. Defending my PhD this October. Physics Graduate.
Certified computer professional. Experienced in
analysing and programming solutions for complicated
scientific problems. In my site in
http://users.otenet.gr/~kchas/acc1.htm I offer, in english,
an advanced scientific computing course.

9. Well, since I don't know the skill or experience of
the members of the board I cannot say much. Just that
I am both a person of the Arts and the Sciences.

10. On that you have to trust me. I know I have a lot
of energy, enthusiasm and interest. I am young, I don't
have a child yet.

11. I got two votes that I am very proud of! If I only
knew that they are not from Greece, then, together
with my self-endorsement (the third vote), I would
have assured one of the two ICANN criteria.
Impressive, no!? :-) (the next step I will be really
proud of will be the fifth vote!
you know, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, ...)

I welcome all my fellow co-candidates to provide brief       Up to Aug 27 nobody answered 
answers to these 11 criteria as I did, so to provide new-    as I did those questions.
comers to this list (you know, people that are returning
from their vacations, etc.) with another starting point
to find their way through our labyrinth of messages.

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis


   

Hi all,

To anyone studying statistics, politics, inter-national relations,
intra-national relations, social psychology, and candidate methodologies, 
probably, my long (and enthusiastic) answer to Mr Bertola will not be a matter 
of surprise. So, enjoy ... (excuse me for having many parentheses within 
parentheses but while a young student some years ago I studied Lisp, and some 
abuse in the use of parentheses is (from that time on) my problem).


From: Vittorio Bertola vb@vitaminic.net
To: icann-europe@fitug.de
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 7:13 PM
Subject: [ICANN-EU] Increasing representativeness

> ...

> I am the webmaster of the only Italian site devoted to ICANN
> information - then I decided to jump on the other side and be a
> candidate myself, mainly because I was completely unsatisfied by ICANN
> nominees. However, I know that non-German candidates don't have de
> facto any chance to get in the two only available places (maybe they
> had if there were five or six) ;-)


Although I have enjoyed (for the most part) the politeness with which the German
co-candidates (and simple members@large) have exchanged (so far) their ideas
on the technical aspects and political dimensions of ICANN, in general and of this 
election in particular, I cannot escape remarking that, mainly, the picture that 
emerges from the emails in this mail-list is a picture of intra-German conflict.

But what one can say. It is a matter of fact that:
(a) From the 35942 european members@large registered, 20475 originated from 
    Germany (i.e. 57%).
(b) Almost 70% of the world's web traffic comes from the U.S., Japan is
    second with 7%, and ... Germany is third with 5% ! Spanish-language web 
    sites make up less than 2%.                (One can see the exact reference here) 
    France and England are below, and don't search to find Belgium, Luxemburg, 
    or Greece.
(c) The per country majority of nomination candidates originates from Germany.

So, what is my point?

IF, according to some democratic ethics, undefined yet, ICANN representation
must be made according to number of users, then clearly, Germany is well 
placed, and Africa, for example (imagine, we are talking a continent here!), 
is probably, better placed than deserved.

IF, according to some democratic ethics, undefined yet, ICANN representation
must be made according to number of informed users, then clearly, Germany is 
well placed, but, where for example is Scandinavia? where is Sweden? Denmark? 
Norvege? Finland? People (like us) well informed on the matters of Internet, 
know, that Scandinavia has high involvement with the Internet, both from 
academia but also from simple users. For example, my Swedish ant has an email
account while my Greek ant has not!).

IF ICANN representation must be made on the basis of population, then, where
is India, or China? (ok, this has more to do with ICANN bylaws than the fact 
that Germany has many internet users and high degree of involvement, but it 
helps form the argument, ok!?)

IF ICANN representation must be made on the basis of cultural uniqueness,
then, goodbye countries or continents, because there are many many cultural 
minorities out there waiting for a forum to speak (ok, ICANN is not a forum, 
but go and ask an oppressed person, "hey, I give you a place to speak, but 
you must only speak about technical matters", do you think that he will
miss the oportunity?)

Define your own democratic ethics, and you will have your own answer! (Or,
your answer will define your ethics!)

Why I am saying all these?

Because it seems fair that Germany has the lead!

But,

(ok, there is always a "but", but, we are all intelligent, educated,
cultivated people, and the added value of the discussions in this list, and 
of what self-organized entities will come to life from this endeavour, is so 
great, that, I am really happy that most of my symmetry fulfilling partners 
in these dialogues were German!)

I am afraid that both the two positions will be taken by candidates
originated from Germany, that will mainly speak in ICANN about the Internet
and about Europe, the German way, and the rest of Europe will be out (this 
is just a fear, things may turn out differently!).

Ok, it is true that there are the other five nominated persons, but I am
sure, we all agree, we cannot put those five in the same position as OUR
precious two that we will, after all, nominate. And will support! Because 
who-ever they will be, they will be OUR two people!

>
> Even if we are just at the beginning, I think that there are already
> some lessons we must learn.
>
> The first one is the incredibly high number of candidates, which in my
> opinion constitutes a problem.

No, no Mr Bertola, it is not a problem, it is this that gave birth to these
wonderful discussions, and, all these candidates, when they will self-organize 
to a larger body they will perform miracles. Believe me!

> With 75 or 100 candidates, nobody will
> ever care to read all presentations. Simply, everyone will search for
> candidates from his own country, take the 3-4 most voted of them and
> choose among them. I'm not so sure that publishing the number of votes
> received by the candidates is helping the democracy of the process
> (basically, all candidates who for any reason did not get endorsements
> in the very first days have no chances) but I also understand that you
> cannot browse a list of up to 100 candidates and this is the "less
> worst" criterion you could think of.
>
> However, I am sure that these 100 candidates do not represent 100
> different views on the matter. This is why I think that the solution
> to this problem is aggregation. This phase of the elections should
> generate, if possible, "alliances" or groups of candidates that share
> a common program and commitments. By the way, I don't think that it is
> possible for anyone to keep in contact with the whole European
> Internet community by himself alone. A network of at least one ICANN
> At Large representative per country should be definitely constituted,
> be it official or unofficial. There should be a virtual regional
> council through which the European At Large Director can get the
> consensus or at least the voices of everyone about important decisions
> to be taken.

I agree and I support that idea. Ideas of this type have already been
proposed by other candidates too. Yes, we must self-organize! Fast!

Now, here I have an idea:
What if we form such a body, (lets call it the "eubody") and then, here
comes a candidate and says: "I recognize my limits. I now declare that I 
will not decide, If I get elected, on any matter in the ICANN, without 
discussing the matter with eubody! (Maybe he will also declare that
he will wait for the ok from the eubody, but that probably it goes too far ;-) ). 
I think that I will vote for such a candidate, if some minimum criteria of 
technical ability and political awareness are satisfied. (Now, after these 
days of intense emailing, I believe, we are able to form a more or less 
complete image of all candidates (even of those that have not spoke, because,
the abstention from this list is a part of the image of a candidate!))

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis


   

From: Thomas Roessler roessler@does-not-exist.org
To: Constantine S. Chassapis cschassapis@acm.org
Cc: Vittorio Bertola vb@vitaminic.net; icann-europe@fitug.de
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Increasing representativeness


> On 2000-08-17 21:24:20 +0300, Constantine S. Chassapis wrote:
>
> >> A network of at least one ICANN At Large representative per
> >> country should be definitely constituted, be it official or
> >> unofficial. There should be a virtual regional council through
> >> which the European At Large Director can get the consensus or
> >> at least the voices of everyone about important decisions to be
> >> taken.
>
> > I agree and I support that idea. Ideas of this type have already
> > been proposed by other candidates too. Yes, we must
> > self-organize! Fast!
>
> Well, to put it a bit IETF-like: I believe in open lists and rough
> consensus. I don't suppose we need appointed representatives from
> countries or the like. I'd expect that with some luck there'll be
> available a sufficient amount of expertise which is sufficiently
> distributed over the continent, which just waits to be collected.
>

Dear Thomas,

The way to collect the distributed intelligence of our europe is something
that concerns me a lot. I believe that the people in this mailing list,
and possibly some other candidates that have not expressed themselves yet
are, ..., well, how to present it, ..., are a GOOD START! Lets find an
intelligence and fair way to self-organize in a level a little bit higher
than a mail-list.

For example 1, a think-tank may be formed, but a little more organized than
a simple mail-list, maybe some intelligent technology is needed or some
intelligent people, where the discussions will be more organized, presented
threaded, interlinked, maybe a search engine, maybe a specialized site for
the group. Maybe some external people will be invited to express ideas, 
people from academia, or industry. The people in this body, I call it "eubody",
I imagine they will work a little more through their answers or
their questions, they will have the time to work some material during for
example the week-ends, nobody will press someother for answer, there will be 
no elections. Some intelligent organizational scheme is needed, some bylaws 
will guarantee that we will be self-protected from governmental, industrial 
or other hidden influence, , ... ok, I stop now.

For example 2, a Eeuropean group that may even publish a magazine. Then maybe
a book. Then maybe, with support from enough members, we may even become
a respectable pressure group. If you have a respectable number of people
from all over europe, not only mass-media will get interested, but also, we 
will have rights related to the  European uinon.

For example 3, Greece is a good place for summer vacations, maybe we may
organize an open forum each year in some Island of Greece. Maybe we may
even invite some rock or jazz groups, and do something of a happening. You
know, that, among other things, draws publicity.

I am waiting your answer.

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis


   

Dear Thomas,


> > Lets find an intelligence and fair way to self-organize in a
> > level a little bit higher than a mail-list.
> 
> I'm absolutely not convinced that this would be the right way to go.
> 


How one can draw mass-media attention and coverage through
an e-mail list. If you have the answer, then, we should immediately
apply it in respect to this wonderful email list that you maintain.


> > For example 1, a think-tank may be formed, but a little more
> > organized than a simple mail-list, maybe some intelligent
> > technology is needed or some intelligent people, where the
> > discussions will be more organized, presented threaded,
> > interlinked, maybe a search engine, maybe a specialized site for
> > the group.
> 
> Mh... Did yo look at this list's archive site? It's threaded, a
> search engine could easily be added. (Personally, I tend to prefer
> local mail archives, and use my mail user agent's abilities to
> browse the archive. However, YMMV.)


Threads are good but don't help always. If you can add some
software that could for example answer questions of the type:
"+Roessler +(ideas|opinions) -attacks" I would be glad. Hey,
what YMMV means?


> 
> > Maybe some external people will be invited to express ideas,
> > people from academia, or industry. 
> 
> This certainly sounds reasonable.
> 
> > The people in this body, I call it "eubody", I imagine they will
> > work a little more through their answers or their questions, they
> > will have the time to work some material during for example the
> > week-ends, nobody will press someother for answer, there will be
> > no elections. 
> 
> Which of these points can't be guaranteed on a mailing list?


ok, you are correct on this!


> 
> > Some intelligent organizational scheme is needed, some bylaws
> > will guarantee that we will be self-protected from governmental,
> > industrial or other hidden influence, , ... ok, I stop now.
> 
> You're running into a trap, here, I believe.
> 
> What you are calling "high-level organization" involves considerable
> transaction costs, and structure. This implies that funding is
> needed, which may in turn lead to dependencies and influence from
> funding parties. On the other hand, using ressources readily
> available without explicit costs, and keeping structure as simple as
> possible would avoid such hidden influences to a large extent
> without adding the complexity of explicit bylaws and the like.


Yes, but if you need media coverage, you need something more.

Another thing. If a rich man comes, and says, I donate you that
amount of money, under no obligation, but to promote your
ideas and to get self-organized. Should we say no? 


> 
> > For example 2, a european group that may even publish a magazine.
> 
> Magazines require work. Who's going to do it?
> 
> > Then maybe a book. Then maybe, with support from enough members,
> > we may even become a respectable pressure group. If you have a
> > respectable number of people from all over europe, not only
> > mass-media will get interested, but also, we will have rights
> > related to the european uinon.
> 
> Good point. However, I'm not sure if a formal pressure group could
> reach as far as a "community-building" effort could. With a formal
> pressure group, possibly involving a certain amount of power and
> influence on others' decisions, members will have to ask themselves
> whether or not they want to support the direction in which this
> influence is exercised.


Are you afraid to exercise influence if you are capable of doing
it?


> 
> On the other hand, an informal community can easily accomodate very
> rough consensus-building models, minority opinions, and whatnot. I
> believe this would be more fruitful, and is closer to what we really
> need today.


OK. and next? I mean, when our brilliand ideas arrive at a point
of equilibrium after a lot of boilling, where they will land? How we
will spread the word?


> 
> > For example 3, Greece is a good place for summer vacations, maybe
> > we may organize an open forum each year in some Island of Greece.
> > Maybe we may even invite some rock or jazz groups, and do
> > something of a happening. You know, that, among other things,
> > draws publicity.
> 
> There are other nice places in Europe, too. ,-)


Of course!


> 
> However, physical meetings lead to expenses, effort, and the need
> for funding, with all the disadvantages I talked about above.

                                                                      Thomas's  answer
Yes, in matters of financing it has always been very hard for me      can be found here.
to balance your rightful attacks!

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis


   

Dear Oliver,

Thank you for your maturity and your decision to step down.
I am certain that most of us are struggling with our egos in trying 
to reach your level of maturity. (Or most of us are absent in 
vacations). I owe you some answers to your questions, although
you must understand that after so many days of intense emailing 
there is some degree of reiteration, fact that leads to short answers.


> 1) How do you feel about the election and the endorsement-
> period (only 2 self-nominated candidates will make it)?

As Mr Schultz already remarked, "Andreas and Roberto have 
said nearly all to say". The way I see it, we were all a little bit
too late in our reaction. It is also true that we did not had much
available time to react anyway. Of course I am not happy about
the 5:2 ratio, the inverse ratio would have been more correct. But,
Mr Gaetano has the last word: "in spite of the disagreement, 
I don't feel wise to concentrate on this. It will take time and 
resources away from discussing other issues".

> 2) Should the ICANN be democratic?

Mr Lutz Donnerhacke said "Difficult question. The major part of 
the directors board should be democratic indeed. But there are a 
lot of questions which should be handled more professionally". In
the same spirit goes the answer of Mr Gaetano: "The problem is how 
to translate [democratic] in practical terms." 

There seems to be a problem here, one that I have already found
expressed in previous emails. It seems that democracy, and 
decisions on technical matters are not quite compatible. I believe
that this is incorrect. I believe that ICANN should be democratic
in all its procedures. Now, why I believe that decisions on
technical matters and democracy are compatible! Look, 
whoever believes the inverse has been, most probably,
the witness of a systematic disfiguration of democracy 
from the abuse of the so-called "democratic procedures". 
Democracy is "fair play". THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EVERY MAJORITY
IS NOT OPPRESSING THE MINORITY. That's the difficult thing, 
not performing a voting session! So, methodologies
have been invented, to cope for the much common situation
where the people involved do not respect their essential 
responsibility (most often because there are hidden influences). 
One such methodology is having a member in a board that
has a double vote. Other methodologies can be described
by the interesting term of 'technical democracy' that Mr Griffini
mentioned in his answer. Democracy is not procedures, it is
respect. Respect is not a dry word. It implies the constant
awareness of each one of us that "I might be wrong!", (so I
respect the idea of the other, because he/she might be correct). It 
implies the responsibility of each one of us to know "when
he is wrong" (for example, when he is not competent on an issue).

Dear fellow netizens, that's democracy. It is respect! It is
responsibility! That is what we are all talking about all these days. 
We cannot speak about the rights of the people in the Internet and 
on the same time accepting, that, ok, we can bend the rules a little, 
because, well, technical matters are a ... different story. 


> 3) Only 5 of 9 directors will elected in this election. When and 
> how should the 4 remaining directors be elected?

I quote Mr Donnerhacke: "In the same way (without nom-com).
The people are aware of ICANN@Large now" I hope that too.
A larger answer about the procedure was offered by Mr Griffini
when he answered your questions.

The most important thing is, I believe, the at large membership
to realize its importance and its power, and ICANN people
and procedures to respect that. (the use of the specific words
refers to my answer in the previous question).

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis


   

From: Griffini Giorgio grigio@mediapoint.it
To: icann-europe@fitug.de
Cc: ajm@icann.org
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 4:27 AM
Subject: [ICANN-EU] A challenging deadlock


[...]
> A day or two after I filled the nomination application and when the
> presentation web page was already showing on the ICANN site, I realized I
> left out some information and I sent a message to election staff in order to
> know if was possibile to update that page. I received no answer so I thought
[...]
> On my presentation I was stating I was in wait for an answer from
> IANA/ICANN about a thing I requested for my company.
[...]
> On email received yesterday there is also the answer I was talking about
> in my presentation.
> This fact makes my current presentation stating improper statement
[...]
> On my side I think it is not fair to leave that misleading statement there
> (almost in respect of involved parties) and that it is not fair that I'm bound to
> be 'unfair' by not being able to update that statement .
>
> On the ICANN side it is not fair to make an exception and allow me to
> update the page while not allowing the same to other candidates.
>
> The most 'curious' thing is that we falled into this deadlock as a result of a
> fair action (giving me an answer) .. .:)
>
> How we can handle this in a 'fair' way ?

Dear Giorgio,

It is a very interesting "deadlock" the one you describe. I believe you are
responsible for arriving at that deadlock, because you were allowed to
use URLs in your initial statement, so you were free to put a link and a
statement of the type: "in few days, here (enter the link) you will find the
true status of the situation I am describing now". You were not fair at
the beginning so you arrived at the deadlock. You did not arrived to the
deadlock because of fair action as you say. Sorry if I reprimand you,
it is not my intention, especially towards you that I like your ideas in
general, I just have to defend "fairness" and "fair play", almost an
obsession for me.

So, you forgot the URL.
People at ICANN cannot allow you the revision. An
OK thing if that would signified that no other person could possibly benefit
from that due to their own technoeconomic restrictions. And you,
obviously a very responsible and democratic person, you feel obliged to
mention all these to all of us. A solution? Ask ICANN to modify their
technoeconomic limitations. Other solution, tell to
all of us what exactly is misleading. It is a partial; solution, but an OK one.
Another one, add periodic postings to all icann-eu related MLs in the world
stating the correct sentences.

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis


   

Dear all, Dear Thomas,

Motivated from Thomas Roessler thinking ...

Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 4:50 PM
Subject: [ICANN-EU] self-organization / pressure group

> My point is that for just providing the European @large director
> with input and transparency, we don't need to set up a formal
> pressure group with all the problems and costs it implies. For this
> purpose, an open mailing list with appropriate infrastructure is
> actually better suited. Such a list could easily evolve out of this
> one; the infrastructure will remain available and can be improved
> even after the elections are over. 

I developed a memo (you know, the first step before an Internet-
Draft: I-D), that I enclose below that tries to answer 
some questions that appear all the time in our ML. I am
waiting your input with real interest, especially if we need to
self-organize in order to be ready for September Phase or for
the after-the-elections phase.
The essential theme is to have an ML with no hierarchy where
all the at large members can equally participate, and where results 
can be produced directly from the list! Enjoy!

---------------------------------------------------------------------


MEMO


SELF-ORGANIZATION AND READABILITY
OF A LARGE MESSAGE LIST

By Constantine Chassapis cschassapis@acm.org

Version 0.1 of August 19, 2000;
Submitted to icann-europe@fitug.de ML.


This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices
for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and
suggestions for improvements. 



A. INTRODUCTION

How one can participate in a message-list of possibly 100000
members, with no hierarchy, and at the same time don't loose
all meaning? In a list where everyone will be able to speak at
the root level and at the same time everyone must be able to
follow hundreds of threaded discussions and thousands of
messages PER DAY! Here follows an answer, based on 
member sense of respect and responsibility, which tries to 
establish "fair play" through very simple rules and simple 
technology. 

(Please, when you will study the pointing system that follows,
keep in mind that I have not done any study on the exact
points that must be added or subtracted per action. This needs
revision. If someone has experience with dynamic systems, please
comment; otherwise I should have to write a simulation program
to find out).


B. THE SCHEME

0. We use the classic e-mail-list (ML hereon), as our example.
Let us say that the ML has 100000 members and it receives, let's
say, 10000 new messages per day. Whether these messages are also
distributed to the members, or are just posted on a publicly
accessible web page, or both, it is not critical for this
discussion. The minimum requirement is that all messages are
posted on a specific place (and are linkable) and that all
threads are clearly perceptible. No subject- or region- grouping
is expected, no time-grouping either.

1. There must be sum-ups. Intelligent summaries. The person that
started a thread must make the summary when he/she realizes that
the discussion is over (if some days pass, for example, with no
related threaded message - an informative note should be privately
posted to all participants of a particular thread saying that the
thread is about to conclude). That person should be responsible
for an intelligent summary that will include all opinions
expressed. If he fails to write the SUM UP, then, after some
reasonable time, some other person should do it. Let's give a +2
to a person that will make the sum up and a -3 to a person that
fails to do so. Then the thread will be concluded. No threads
will be allowed to originate from the message denoted as [SUM UP].
Links to it from other messages will be ok. SUM UPs must contain
an INDEX of keywords and persons mentioned on all messages in 
the thread. Another document may set clearer specifications for
SUM Ups. Maybe a SUM UP must be reviewed by a 
COLLECTOR (see point 4 below) that will act as a referee, before 
it receives the [SUM UP] indication.

2. Threads within threads? No problem, each internal thread should
conclude before the parent thread concludes, and the upper 
SUM UP must comprehensibly contain all other SUM UPs and 
a full INDEX. Single message "thread"? No action has to be taken!

3. Can there be critiques to a SUM UP or parallel SUM UPs?
Of course. Critiques can start a new, independent, thread, and
link to the SUM UP. Parallel sum ups can be listed at the same
terminal level of a thread. The +2 points will be given to all
persons that perform SUM UPs. Ok, let's not allow SUM UPs of 
SUM Ups of the same thread.

4. It is rational that COLLECTORS must be operational; people
with, for example, adequate positive number on their account.
These people will have the right to post at the root level of the
ML messages denoted [COLLECTIONS] that will contain 
collections of links to interesting messages in their own view, with
critiques, or summaries. Everyone can also do that, simply,
collections by collectors will be marked [COLLECTIONS]. It will
be a kind of a marking of authority regarding the specific ML.

5. Each person posting a message will get on his/her account some
positive number, lets say +1, per message. Every newcomer to the
ML will start with, lets say, a +100.

6. Spamming, advertising (ok, some minimum advertising at the
bottom of a message might be ok), improper language should cost
something to the originator, lets say a -1 per message. Who will
decide that? What is heaven for one person can be hell for
another. Well, this is a request for comments and ideas. I don't
know. Maybe the easiest thing is that we all agree on few things,
like for example forbidden words, or level of advertising, and
then things can be mechanized through some dictionary of
forbidden words or phrases.

7. If a message starts a thread, or is linked in a collector's
COLLECTION, its originator receives an additional +2.

8. What happens if someone finds himself someday with a net -1
or a -100? Nothing. It is just difficult for him to become a
collector. Maybe if one ends with a -200 his/her right to post
messages must be taken (but he/she may still be able to collect
positive points by making SUM Ups, so that the right can be re-
gained by hard work!). What if everybody becomes a collector? 
Then, we must have a party! 
At what time somebody becomes a collector?
I don't know, lets say at +200. 
After the COLLECTOR status, what? 
I don't know? Is it important? The point is to make people get
involved! The essence of a message board is the content of the
messages! The present system tries to organize an ML that will
receive 10000 or more messages per day for the shake of reading,
or at least apprehending the essence of the content of the ML as
a reader of it. 

9. A COLLECTOR status may be lost, then regained. A 
COLLECTION never looses its status. Maybe here we can put a 
permanent COLLECTOR status, or something else, something 
honorary, if one reaches, let's say, +500.


C. ACCOUNTING AND PSYCHOLOGY

10. Everything up to now is immediately applicable to our ML at
icann-europe@fitug.de, except the pointing system. A simple
solution: Everyone makes his own summing, and posts this next to
his name whenever he concludes and posts a message. This demands
a lot of responsibility. Another solution? Modify a little the
mail-receptor program to display the points on the web site that
hosts the messages. If we use the first (easy) solution, maybe
each participator of the ML should have for a day or two the duty
of checking a random sample of other members for their
addition / subtraction capabilities. (If an error is found,
lets put a -1 for every decade that is wrong in the positive
sense, and just correct it if the sum erroneously is less than
the correct number). And this duty should circle around all
members.

11. Psychological remarks: An ML that follows this system on
top of existing technology adds some work to a person that has
a message to post, after he/she posts the message. This is fair
because this makes him/her think twice before posting a
message, but on the other hand this system can be very rewarding. 
I am certain, that in an ML of so many people, being a 
COLLECTOR will please a lot, and the net effect will be 
easiness for all of us in following or recapitulating the discussions. 
Another thing is that the ensemble of COLLECTORs of a large ML 
and of a huge collection of messages, will be a kind of self-organized 
distillery of the collective intelligence of the ML.


D. POINT SYSTEM SUMMARY

I. Per member:

+100 at entry.
+1 per message posted.
+2 per SUM UP done.
-3 per SUM UP not done but required.
-1 per improper message.
+2 per message that starts a thread or is linked back in a
collector's collection.
+2 per message that is linked back in a collector's 
collection.

II. If member points get greater than +200 then COLLECTOR.

III. If member points get greater than +500 then PERMANENT 
COLLECTOR. 

IV. If member points less than -200 then provisional denial of
message posting capability.


E. TERMINOLOGY

MESSAGE: Usually the classical email in a mail-list. Other
forms may be envisaged too.

ML: message-list. A collection of people that exchange
messages on a daily basis and where all messages are made
public to the members of the ML.

THREAD: A list of time-ordered messages where each refers
to its previous in the ordered list. A thread may generate
sub-threads.

SUM-UP: a summary of the important points discussed in a 
thread. Concludes a thread.

ACCOUNT: Each participant of the message-list has a virtual
account where his "points" are added or subtracted. The net
number each moment reflects his degree of involvement in the
list, his knowledge of the messages exchanged, his eagerness
to participate.

COLLECTIONS: messages that contain intelligent collections of
links to other interesting messages possibly incorporating a
critique, a summary, an index, external http or other links,
etc.

INDEX: part of a message that discusses other messages where
keywords and persons are indexed and the links of the index
points to the original messages (possibly also stating, first
half, second half of the message to ease the reader finding
his/her way through).

END MEMO


   

From: Adrian Suter adrian.lists@wortrei.ch
To: icann-europe@fitug.de
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] MEMO requesting discussion: Structuring a large ML


> At 00:53 20.08.00 +0300, Constantine S. Chassapis wrote:
>
> >SELF-ORGANIZATION AND READABILITY
> >OF A LARGE MESSAGE LIST
> >
> >By Constantine Chassapis cschassapis@acm.org
> >
> >Version 0.1 of August 19, 2000;
> >Submitted to icann-europe@fitug.de ML.
> >
> >
> >This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices
> >for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and
> >suggestions for improvements.

This is not my wording. I took it as proposed in RFC2223, because
I had to orient the possible readers.

>
> Above all, this is not true. This memo does not even specify a "current
> practice", and I doubt very much about the "best".
>
> [SUM-UP, COLLECTION etc.]
>
> It just won't work.
>
> If you want to make it work, you have to set up two mailing lists: one for
> announcements (which would be: articles to start a thread, sum-ups and
> collections) and one for discussions. The first ML should be moderated. The
> second should be a subscriber of the first one, thus allowing people to
> subscribe to only one of the two. If they see something on the
> announcements-list, they can subscribe the discussion-list and follow that
> particular thread. Others can always participate in discussions, and others
> again might prefer to read only the sum-ups.
>
> That system could work, but newsgroups might be much more approproiate for
> such an approach.

This suggestion of yours is very interesting. My original intention though was
to keep pre-structure at an absolute minimum and concentrate on
message content and members involvement. That is, if the members of a list
would like their large (dont forget that) list to really work, they must work!
I did not wanted to impose anything, no moderation, no hierarchy, no pre-
selected articles from authorities.

This comment of yours about my memo, is the first received and I really thank
you for that Adrian.

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis


   

Hi all,

I forgot to reward a COLLECTOR that performed
a COLLECTION. I think a +5 is ok.

I am now designining a small simulation to see how the
points must be given.

Sincerely
Constantine S. Chassapis


   

Hi all,

I know this has nothing to do with UDRP which is the hot topic
for now, but, some messages ago (maybe also some days ago),
I said that I will perform a simulation to establish if my pointing
system has any future. 

I thus made a probabilistic simulation (in fortran 90) of an ML 
of 15000 members who post on the average 1500
messages per clock tick (lets say per day) and where 420
of them get threaded per tick, and where 200 SUMUPS were done
and where about 60 were not done. The members were divided
in five classes (tourist - 5%, lazy - 30%, average - 40%, 
hardWorker - 20%, exceptional - 5%), and their responsiveness
or eagerness was varied. Also their eagerness varied 
according to the points they secured (it dropped). The 
methodology was a sigmoid function that set the probability of
response and its center varied according to class and points
collected.

I run many simulations for 10000 time-steps and found that my
orignal pointing system failed due to the exponential growth of
links (from the collectors). So, I found that the following
pointing system had a stable asymptote (after 100000 steps): 
4165 collectors, 10272 simple members and 563 temporarily 
frozen members:

+100 at entry.
+0 per message posted.
+1 per SUM UP done.
-10 per SUM UP not done but required.
-1 per improper message.
+1 per message that starts a thread or is linked back in a
collector's collection.
+1 per message that is linked back in a collector's 
collection.
+1 per collection to a collector
the limit for denial of posting ability was set to -100 
the limit for becoming a collector to +300

(Final note: The asymptotic number of collections was 172 per step,
and these collections had 1500 links per step all together. The
percentage of improper messages was set to 10%).

And that completes the story. I will not add anything more
here unless somebody asks so. The system is there in the
MEMO and its supplements. If anyone wishes to see the
code, I will be happy to give it.

Maybe the system proposed by others, of two or three parallel
MLs, is better. In any case, we should self-organize fast.

Sincerely,
Constantine S. Chassapis

P.S. -- If I will ever publish something in the form of a paper 
about this stuff, you (the 15 or 20 people that have posted your
ideas in this list) will be the first to be informed.

P.S.2-- Hey Thomas, it is really interesting that only 15 to 25
people post messages in the icann-europe@fitug.de. Do you
know how many members this list has?

   

From: Ralf Mobius ralfmoebius@freenet.de
To: icann-candidates@egroups.com; icann-europe@fitug.de
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 11:44 AM
Subject: [ICANN-EU] Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:48:56 +0200


> Good morning,

Good morning to you too,

> after a long discussion about democracy and the dangers of political and
> industrial domination of the net, I would like to ask you a few qestions
> about internet and censorship.

> 1. Do you think there should be a general censorship in the www, filtering
> certain contents ?

no!

>
> 2. If so, isn`t the danger of censorship higher than any influence of
> extremist contents?

Yes, the danger of censorship is the highest. The essense of democracy, is
not the "vote" as someone put it, but fair play (and that induces the "vote"
story). Fair play means, you allow anyone to play, to speak that is,
including the ones whom you disagree with!

> 3. Isn`t it sufficient, that the criminal law and terms of resposibility for
> web-contents of each country ensure that contents in the net follow a
> minimum standard of what we call civilization?

Yes. Even if somethings are allowed in some countries and simultaneously
not allowed in others. The Internet will transform society! You must not
apply old tools to the new medium. If there is something globally bad, like
child pornography, then I am certain that all "civilized" countries will
rightfuly attack it, through local laws, which will become global if applied
by all countries. You must not apply censorship to the medium Internet.

> Best regards, Ralf Mobius.

Best Regards,
Constantine Chassapis

   

Dear Roland,                                            Roland Portig

You wrote...
> you see the ICANN as I do. If you are phoning with your 
> friend, you do not
> ask if the telephone company is structured democratic. 
> What others think on
> political issues are only issues of the force behind ICANN, 
> and to treat
> force must be a non political thing, or even we will get a 
> web as a dull
> mirror of the world as it is.


It is my strongest belief (maybe, because I am probably 
younger than you sir) that the Internet, or any future form
of it, will be a so radically novel way for all of us for being 
and creating, that the current politicians don't even start 
realizing, even less trying or succeeding in controlling it.

That said, I agree with you when you write:
"The politicians try to capture the web for their needs".
It is not for this though that I don't like politicians. As I said
before, everyone has the right to speak and operate in the
Internet. I don't like politicians because they are not political 
persons, but crypto-commercial persons. What I mean is this:
They are trying to sell themselves, not their ideas or their
aspirations and at the same time they hide this (crypto is a
Greek word for hidden), claiming that they speak on the name
of the people, for the good of the people and stuff like that.
It is OK, though, they have the right to do that. And I have
the right to say what I am saying. 

So, ...
so the greatest danger of the Internet, as I see it (the danger,
and the internet) is not politicians or politics, it is ourselves,
being ... how can I put it ... ignorant, frozen, uneducated, simple
spectators, in other words, the danger is: all of us, the users,
being a-political.

Best Regards,
Constantine Chassapis