ICANN headquarters at USC ISI

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, /ˈaɪkæn/ EYE-kan) is a nonprofit private organization headquartered in Marina del Rey, California, United States, that was created on September 18, 1998, and incorporated on September 30, 1998^[1] to oversee a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. government by other organizations, notably the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which ICANN now operates.

ICANN is responsible for the coordination of the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers and, in particular, ensuring its stable and secure operation.^[2] This work includes coordination of the Internet Protocol address spaces (IPv4 and IPv6) and assignment of address blocks to regional Internet registries, for maintaining registries of Internet protocol identifiers, and for the management of the top-level domain name space (DNS root zone), which includes the operation of root nameservers. Most visibly, much of its work has concerned the DNS policy development for internationalization of the DNS system and introduction of new generic top-level domains (TLDs). The actual technical maintenance work of maintenance of the central Internet address pools and DNS root registries ICANN performs pursuant to the "IANA function" contract.

ICANN's primary principles of operation have been described as helping preserve the operational stability of the Internet; to promote competition; to achieve broad representation of the global Internet community; and to develop policies appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes.^[3]

On September 29, 2006, ICANN signed a new agreement with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) that moves the private organization towards full management of the Internet's system of centrally coordinated identifiers through the multi-stakeholder model of consultation that ICANN represents.^[4]

History[link]

Before the establishment of ICANN, the Government of the United States controlled the domain name system of the Internet.^[5]

The original mandate for ICANN came from the United States government, spanning the presidential administrations of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. On January 30, 1998, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, issued for comment, "A Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses." The proposed rule making, or "Green Paper", was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1998, providing opportunity for public comment. NTIA received more than 650 comments as of March 23, 1998, when the comment period closed.^{[citation needed]}

The Green Paper proposed certain actions designed to privatize the management of Internet names and addresses in a manner that allows for the development of robust competition and facilitates global participation in Internet management. The Green Paper proposed for discussion a variety of issues relating to DNS management including private sector creation of a new not-for-profit corporation (the "new corporation") managed by a globally and functionally representative Board of Directors.^{[citation needed]} ICANN was formed in response to this policy.^{[citation needed]} The IANA function currently exists under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce.^{[citation needed]}

ICANN was incorporated in California on September 30, 1998.^[1] It is qualified to do business in the District of Columbia.^[6] ICANN was established in California due to the presence of Jon Postel, who was a founder of ICANN and was set to be its first CTO prior to his unexpected death. ICANN remains in the same building where he worked, which is home to an office of the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California.

Per its original Bylaws, primary responsibility for policy formation in ICANN was to be delegated to three supporting organizations (Address Supporting Organization, Domain Name Supporting Organization, and Protocol Supporting Organization), each of which was to develop and recommend substantive policies and procedures for the management of the identifiers within their respective scope. As expected, the Regional Internet Registries and the IETF agreed to serve as the Address Supporting Organization and Protocol Supporting Organization respectively^[7][8], and ICANN issued a call for interested parties to propose the structure and composition of the Domain Name Supporting Organization.^[9] On 4 March 1999, the ICANN Board, based in part on the DNSO proposals received, decided instead on an alternate construction for DNSO which delineated specific constituencies.^[10][11]

On July 26, 2006, the United States government renewed the contract with ICANN for performance of the IANA function for an additional one to five years.^[12] The context of ICANN's relationship with the U.S. government was clarified on September 29, 2006 when ICANN signed a new Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC).^[13] This document does give the DoC a final, unilateral oversight over some of the ICANN operations. ^[13][14]

In July 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce reiterated an earlier statement^[15] that it has "no plans to transition management of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN". The letter also stresses the separate roles of the IANA and VeriSign.^[16]

Structure[link]

At present, ICANN is formally organized as a non-profit corporation "for charitable and public purposes" under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. It is managed by a 16-member Board of Directors, which is composed of eight members selected by a Nominating Committee on which all the constituencies of ICANN are represented; six representatives of its Supporting Organizations, sub-groups that deal with specific sections of the policies under ICANN's purview; an At-Large seat filled by an At-Large Organization; and the President / CEO, appointed by the Board. [4]

There are currently three Supporting Organizations. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) deals with policy making on generic top-level domains (gTLDs). The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) deals with policy making on country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs). The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) deals with policy making on IP addresses.

ICANN also relies on some advisory committees to receive advice on the interests and needs of stakeholders that do not directly participate in the Supporting Organizations. These include the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which is composed of representatives of a large number of national governments from all over the world; the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), which is composed of representatives of organizations of individual Internet users from around the world; the Root Server System Advisory Committee, which provides advice on the operation of the DNS root server system; the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), which is composed of Internet experts who study security issues pertaining to ICANN's mandate; and the Technical Liaison Group (TLG), which is composed of representatives of other international technical organizations that focus, at least in part, on the Internet.

Democratic input[link]

In the Memorandum of Understanding that set up the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. government, ICANN was given a mandate requiring that it operate "in a bottom up, consensus driven, democratic manner." However, the attempts that ICANN have made to set up an organizational structure that would allow wide input from the global Internet community did not produce results amenable to the current Board. As a result, the At-Large constituency and direct election of board members by the global Internet community were soon abandoned.^[17]

ICANN holds periodic public meetings rotated between continents for the purpose of encouraging global participation in its processes. Critics^[who?] argue that these public meetings are often held in countries with lower Internet usage and far away from locations that the majority of the Internet-using public can afford to reach.^{[citation needed]} This makes public input or participation from traditional Internet users less likely. Supporters^[who?] reply that ICANN has a worldwide presence, and a key part of its mission is to build Internet use where it is weak.^{[citation needed]}

Resolutions of the ICANN Board, preliminary reports, and minutes of the meetings, are published on the ICANN website, sometimes in real time. However there are criticisms from ICANN constituencies including the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) that there is not enough public disclosure and that too many discussions and decisions take place out of sight of the public.^{[citation needed]}

In the early 2000s, there had been speculation that the United Nations might signal a takeover of ICANN,^[18] followed by a negative reaction from the US government^[15] and worries about a division of the Internet^[19] the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia in November 2005 agreed not to get involved in the day-to-day and technical operations of ICANN. However it also agreed to set up an international Internet Governance Forum, with a consultative role on the future governance of the Internet. ICANN's Government Advisory Committee is currently set up to provide advice to ICANN regarding public policy issues and has participation by many of the world's governments.^[20]

It is argued^{[by whom?]} that ICANN was never given the authority to decide policy, e.g., choose new TLDs or shut out other interested parties who refuse to pay ICANN's US$185,000 fee, but was to be a technical caretaker. Critics^[who?] suggest that ICANN should not be allowed to impose business rules on market participants, and that all TLDs should be added on a first-come-first-served basis and the market should be the arbiter of who succeeds and who does not.^{[citation needed]}

A member of the European Parliament, William Newton-Dunn, has recently been addressing questions to the European Commission, which asks whether ICANN is engaging in restraint of European free trade laws by imposing restrictions on who can operate a TLD and sell domain names.^[21] Some restrictions are considered insurmountable by many small business owners and individuals, such as the perhaps partially refundable $185,000 application fee.

Activities[link]

This section requires expansion.

One task that ICANN was asked to do was to address the issue of domain name ownership resolution for generic top-level domains (gTLDs). ICANN's attempt at such a policy was drafted in close cooperation with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the result has now become known as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This policy essentially attempts to provide a mechanism for rapid, cheap and reasonable resolution of domain name conflicts, avoiding the traditional court system for disputes by allowing cases to be brought to one of a set of bodies that arbitrate domain name disputes. According to ICANN policy, a domain registrant must agree to be bound by the UDRP — they cannot get a domain name without agreeing to this.

A look at the UDRP decision patterns has led some^[22] to conclude that compulsory domain name arbitration is less likely to give a fair hearing to domain name owners asserting defenses under the First Amendment and other laws, compared to the federal courts of appeal in particular.

Notable events[link]

On March 18, 2002, publicly elected At-Large Representative for North America board member Karl Auerbach sued ICANN in Superior Court in California to gain access to ICANN's accounting records without restriction. Auerbach won.^[23]

In September and October 2003, ICANN played a crucial role in the conflict over VeriSign's "wild card" DNS service Site Finder. After an open letter from ICANN issuing an ultimatum to VeriSign, later supported by the IAB,^[24] the company voluntarily shut down the service on October 4, 2003. Following this action, VeriSign filed a lawsuit against ICANN on February 27, 2004, claiming that ICANN had overstepped its authority. In this lawsuit, VeriSign sought to reduce ambiguity about ICANN's authority. The antitrust component of VeriSign's claim was dismissed in August 2004. VeriSign's broader challenge that ICANN overstepped its contractual rights is currently outstanding. A proposed settlement already approved by ICANN's board would resolve VeriSign's challenge to ICANN in exchange for the right to increase pricing on .com domains. At the meeting of ICANN in Rome, which took place from March 2 to March 6, 2004, ICANN agreed to ask approval of the US Department of Commerce for the Waiting List Service of VeriSign.^{[citation needed]}

On May 17, 2004, ICANN published a proposed budget for the year 2004-05. It included proposals to increase the openness and professionalism of its operations, and greatly increased its proposed spending from US $8.27 million to $15.83 million. The increase was to be funded by the introduction of new top-level domains, charges to domain registries, and a fee for some domain name registrations, renewals and transfers (initially USD 0.20 for all domains within a country-code top-level domain, and USD 0.25 for all others).^{[citation needed]} The Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR), which represents the Internet registries of 39 countries, rejected the increase, accusing ICANN of a lack of financial prudence and criticizing what it describes as ICANN's "unrealistic political and operational targets". Despite the criticism, the registry agreement for the top-level domains jobs and travel includes a US $2 fee on every domain the licensed companies sell or renew.^[25]

After a second round of negotiations in 2004, the TLDs eu, asia, travel, jobs, mobi, and cat were introduced in 2005.

ICANN meeting, Los Angeles USA, 2007. The sign refers to Vint Cerf, then Chairman of the Board of Directors, who is working on the Interplanetary Internet.

On February 28, 2006, ICANN's board approved a settlement with VeriSign in the lawsuit resulting from SiteFinder that involved allowing VeriSign (the registry) to raise its registration fees by up to 7% a year.^[26] This was criticised by some people in the US House of Representatives' Small Business committee.^[27]

In February 2007, ICANN began the steps to remove accreditation of one of their registrars, RegisterFly amid charges and lawsuits involving fraud, and criticism of ICANN's handling of the situation. ICANN has been the subject of criticism as a result of its handling of RegisterFly, and the harm caused to thousands of clients due to what has been called ICANN's "laissez faire attitude toward customer allegations of fraud".^[28]

On May 23, 2008, ICANN issued Enforcement Notices against 10 Accredited Registrars and announced this through a press release entitled: "Worst Spam Offenders" Notified by ICANN, Compliance system working to correct Whois and other issues.^[29] This was largely in response to a report issued by KnujOn called The 10 Worst Registrars in terms of spam advertised junk product sites and compliance failure.^[30] The mention of the word spam in the title of the ICANN memo is somewhat misleading since ICANN does not address issues of spam or email abuse. Website content and usage are not within ICANN's mandate. However the KnujOn Report details how various registrars have not complied with their contractual obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).^[31] The main point of the KnujOn research was to demonstrate the relationships between compliance failure, illicit product traffic, and spam. The report demonstrated that out of 900 ICANN accredited Registrars fewer than 20 held 90% of the web domains advertised in spam. These same Registrars were also most frequently cited by KnujOn as failing to resolve complaints made through the Whois Data Problem Reporting System (WDPRS).^[32] The 10 Registrars cited were Xin Net, Beijing Networks, Todaynic, Joker, eNom, Monkier, Dynamic Dolphin, The Nameit Co, Directi, and Intercosmos.^[30]

On June 26, 2008, the ICANN Board started a new process of TLD naming policy to take a "significant step forward on the introduction of new generic top-level domains." This program envisions the availability of many new or already proposed domains, as well a new application and implementation process.^[33]

On October 1, 2008, ICANN issued Breach Notices against Joker and Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd.^[34] after further researching reports and complaints issued by KnujOn. These notices gave the Registrars 15 days to fix their Whois investigation efforts.

In 2010, ICANN approved a major review of its policies with respect to accountability, transparency, and public participation by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.^[35] This external review was in support of the work of ICANN's Accountability and Transparency Review team.^[36]

On February 3, 2011, ICANN announced that it had distributed the last batch of its remaining IPv4 addresses to the world’s five Regional Internet Registries, the organizations that manage IP addresses in different regions. These Registries will begin assigning the final IPv4 addresses within their regions until they run out completely, which could come as soon as early 2012.^[37]

On June 20, 2011 the ICANN board voted to end most restrictions on the names of generic top-level domains (gTLD).^[38][39] Companies and organizations will be able to choose essentially arbitrary top level Internet domain names. The use of non-Latin characters (such as Cyrillic, Arabic, Chinese, etc.) will also be allowed in gTLDs. ICANN will begin accepting applications for new gTLDS on January 12, 2012.^[38] The initial price to apply for a new gTLD will be $185,000.^[40] The renewal or the annual fee of the domain will further be $25,000.^[41][42] It is anticipated that many corporations will apply for gTLDs based on their brands. ICANN expects that the first batch of new gTLDs will be operational by the end of 2012.^[43] ICANN expects the new rules to significantly change the face of the Internet. Peter Thrush, chairman of ICANN's board of directors stated after the vote: "Today's decision will usher in a new Internet age. We have provided a platform for the next generation of creativity and inspiration. Unless there is a good reason to restrain it, innovation should be allowed to run free."^[44] Some would argue that the innovative freedom Peter Thrush talks about starts at $185,000, and thus is not accessible to everyone.^[45]

See also[link]

	Internet portal
	Greater Los Angeles portal

• Alternative DNS root
• Domain name
• Domain name registrar
• Domain slamming
• IANA
• IEEE Registration Authority
• Internationalized domain names and GeoTLDs
• Internet democracy
• Top-level domain
• Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy
• WHOIS

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Franda, Marcus, The Emergence of an International Regime, ISBN 1-55587-999-3
• Wass, Erica, Addressing the World, ISBN 0-7425-2809-X
• Paré, Daniel J. Internet Governance in Transition, ISBN 0-7425-1846-9
• Mueller, Milton L. Ruling the Root, ISBN 0-262-13412-8
• Froomkin, A. Michael Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the Constitution, 50 Duke Law Journal17 (2000)

External links[link]

• ICANN website
• ICANN DNS Operations website
• ICM Registry LLC v. ICANN Top Level Domain Declaration of 19 February 2010 of the ICDR Judicial Review Panel, H.E. President Stephen M. Schwebel, Arbitrators Jan Paulsson and Dickran Tevrizian and ICM v. ICANN Proceedings and ASIL/ILIB of 5 March 2010 and .xxx Internet Domain Plan Resurrected of 9 March 2010 and Panel Makes Internet History of 24 February 2010 and ICDR Panel Urges ICANN to Reconsider and Channel 4 and Arbitration Database
• Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
• ICANNWatch
• Site advocating the return of public representation in ICANN
• VeriSign Domain Report - Quarterly analysis of global domain name market
• DailyChanges.com — a free ICANN Registrar Statistics website
• ICANNWiki.com - Wiki with people and companies related to ICANN
• ICANN Annual Reports

Andrew Sullivan
Sullivan in August 2006
Born	Andrew Michael Sullivan (1963-08-10) 10 August 1963 (age 48) South Godstone, Surrey, England
Nationality	British
Alma mater	Magdalen College, Oxford Harvard University
Occupation	Writer, editor, blogger
Influenced by	Michael Oakeshott, George Orwell, Arthur Koestler, Margaret Thatcher, Edmund Burke, Ronald Reagan[1]
Religion	Roman Catholicism
Spouse	Aaron Tone (m. 2007) «start: (2007)»"Marriage: Aaron Tone to Andrew Sullivan" Location: (linkback:http://en-wiki.pop.wn.com/index.php/Andrew_Sullivan)
Website
andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com

Andrew Michael Sullivan (born 10 August 1963) is a British author, editor, political commentator and blogger. He describes himself as a political conservative.^[2] He has focused on American political life.

Sullivan is a speaker at universities, colleges, and civic organizations in the United States. He has been a guest on national news and political commentary television shows in the United States and Europe. Born and raised in England, he has lived in the United States since 1984 and currently resides in Washington, D.C. and Provincetown, Massachusetts. He is an openly gay Catholic.^[3]

Sullivan is a former editor of The New Republic and the author of five books. He is perhaps best known as the author and editor of his blog, The Dish, which mainly focuses on political issues.

Personal life[link]

Sullivan was born in South Godstone, Surrey, England, to a Roman Catholic family of Irish descent,^[4] and was brought up in the nearby town of East Grinstead, West Sussex. He was educated at Reigate Grammar School,^[5] and studied at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he was awarded a first-class degree Bachelor of Arts in modern history and modern languages.^[6] In his second year, he was elected president of the Oxford Union, holding the office in Trinity term 1983, although criticised for his tactics in founding a university society as a vehicle for his electoral ambitions by Boris Johnson.

Sullivan earned a Master in Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,^[7] followed by a PhD on government from Harvard, his dissertation being on the conservative British philosopher Michael Oakeshott.^[8]

Sullivan, in 2003, wrote a Salon article identifying himself as a member of the gay "bear community".^[9] On 27 August 2007, Sullivan married his husband Aaron Tone in Provincetown, Massachusetts.^[10][11][12]

Sullivan had a long-expressed desire to become a U.S. citizen, but was barred for many years from applying for citizenship because of his HIV-positive status.^[13][14] Following the statutory and administrative repeals of the HIV immigration ban in 2008 and 2009, respectively, Sullivan announced his intention to begin the process of becoming a permanent U.S. resident and citizen.^[15][16] On the episode of The Chris Matthews Show of 16 April 2011, Sullivan confirmed that he is now a United States Permanent Resident, showing his United States Permanent Resident Card (aka Green Card).^[17]

Editor and writer[link]

In 1986, Sullivan began his career with The New Republic magazine, serving as its editor from 1991 to 1996.^[6] In that position, he expanded the magazine from its traditional roots in political coverage to cultural issues and the politics surrounding them. During this time, the magazine produced some groundbreaking journalism but courted several high-profile controversies.

In 1994, Sullivan published excerpts on race and intelligence from Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's controversial The Bell Curve, which argued that some of the measured difference in IQ scores between racially defined groups was the result of genetic inheritance. Almost the entire editorial staff of the magazine threatened to resign if material that they considered racist was published.^[18] In order to appease them, Sullivan included lengthy rebuttals from 19 writers and contributors. Sullivan has continued to speak approvingly of the research and arguments presented in The Bell Curve: "the book... still holds up as one of the most insightful and careful of the last decade. The fact of human inequality and the subtle and complex differences between various manifestations of being human — gay, straight, male, female, black, Asian — is a subject worth exploring, period."^[19]

Sullivan began writing for The New York Times Magazine in 1998, but was fired by editor Adam Moss in 2002 under instructions from executive editor Howell Raines. Jack Shafer writes in Slate magazine that he asked Moss via e-mail to explain this decision, but that his e-mails went unanswered, adding that Sullivan was not fully forthcoming on the subject. Sullivan wrote on his blog that he was told that his presence at the Times made Raines "uncomfortable", but defended Raines's right to sack him. Sullivan suggested that Raines had fired him in response to his criticism of the Times on his blog, and acknowledged that he had expected that his criticisms would eventually anger Raines.^[20]

Blogging[link]

In late 2000, Sullivan began his blog, The Daily Dish. By the middle of 2003, it was receiving about 300,000 unique visits per month. Between starting his blog and ending his New Republic editorship, Sullivan wrote two works on homosexuality, arguing for its social acceptance on libertarian grounds. His writing appears in a number of widely-read publications. He currently serves as a columnist for The Sunday Times of London.

The core principles of Sullivan's blog have been the style of conservatism he views as traditional. This includes fiscal conservatism, limited government, and classic libertarianism on social issues. Sullivan opposes government involvement with respect to sexual and consensual matters between adults, such as the use of marijuana and prostitution. Sullivan believes recognition of same-sex marriage is a civil-rights issue but is willing to promote it on a state-by-state legislative federalism basis, rather than trying to judicially impose the change.^[21] Most of Sullivan's disputes with other conservatives have been over social issues, such as these, and the handling of postwar Iraq.

Sullivan gives out "awards" each year on various public statements that parody those of people the awards are named after. Throughout the year, "nominees" for these awards are mentioned in various blog posts. The readers of his blog vote the "winner" at the end of the year. These awards include:^[22]

• the Hugh Hewitt Award, introduced in June 2008 and named after a man Sullivan describes as an 'absurd partisan fanatic', is for the most egregious attempts to label 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as un-American, alien, treasonous, and far out of the mainstream of American life and politics.
• the John Derbyshire Award is for egregious and outlandish comments on gays, women, and minorities.
• the Paul Begala Award is for extreme liberal hyperbole.
• the Michelle Malkin Award is named after blogger Michelle Malkin. It is for shrill, hyperbolic, divisive and intemperate right-wing rhetoric. (Ann Coulter is ineligible for this award so that, in Sullivan's own words, "Other people will have a chance.")
• the Michael Moore Award is named after film-maker Michael Moore. It is for divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric.
• the Matthew Yglesias Award is for writers, politicians, columnists or pundits who actually criticize their own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what they believe.
• the "Poseur Alert" is awarded for passages of prose that stand out for pretension, vanity and really bad writing designed to look like profundity.
• the "Von Hoffman Award" is for stunningly wrong cultural, political and social predictions.

In February 2007, Sullivan took his blog from TIME to the Atlantic Monthly magazine, where he had accepted an editorial post. Since then, his presence has increased traffic by 30% for Atlantic's website.^[23]

In 2009, The Daily Dish won The 2008 Weblog Award for Best Blog.^[24]

In April 2010, Sullivan was reported to be considering giving up his blog. However, Sullivan stated that he would continue blogging if he could obtain an extra staffer.^[25]

Sullivan left The Atlantic to begin blogging at The Daily Beast in April 2011.^[26]

Politics[link]

Sullivan describes himself as a conservative and is the author of The Conservative Soul. He supports a broad range of traditional conservative positions. He favors a flat tax, limited government, privatization of social security, and opposes welfare state programs and interventionism. However, on a number of controversial public issues, including same-sex marriage, the conduct of torture in the US, and capital punishment, he takes a position typically shared by those on the left of the U.S. political spectrum. His position on abortion is mixed; he says that he personally finds it immoral and favors overturning Roe v. Wade, but can accept legal abortions in the first trimester.

Sullivan supported George W. Bush in the 2000 election.^[27] In 2004, Sullivan reluctantly decided to support John Kerry's presidential campaign, due to his dissatisfaction with the handling of the postwar situation in Iraq by the Bush administration, their views on gay rights, and their fiscal policy. In 2006, he supported the Democratic Party. Sullivan (like a number of other conservatives) endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic Nomination in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, and Rep. Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. Sullivan endorsed Obama for President on the eve of the election.^[28] Sullivan has declared support for Arnold Schwarzenegger^[29] and other like-minded Republicans, and written sympathetically about Republican congressman Ron Paul, whom he endorsed for the 2008 and 2012 Republican presidential nomination.^[30][31]

In January 2009, Tunku Varadarajan, Elisabeth Eaves and Hana R. Alberts, writing in Forbes magazine, ranked Sullivan #19 on a list of "The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media", writing that "he clings unconvincingly to the 'conservative' label even after his fervent endorsement of Obama. His advocacy for gay marriage rights and his tendency to view virtually everything through a 'gay' prism puts him at odds with many on the right."^[32]

Sullivan rejected the "liberal" label, on the grounds that he supports a flat tax, rejects progressive taxation as unjust and counter-productive, is skeptical of universal healthcare and supports a free market in healthcare and pharmaceuticals, strongly supports "fighting a war against Jihadist terror", and therefore does not meet Forbes magazine's own criteria for a "liberal", which include support for progressive taxation and universal healthcare and "a certain queasiness about the war on terror." He argued that Forbes writers, including Tunku Varadarajan, whom he called "smart and decent", consider him a liberal because he is "openly and proudly gay" and because "conservatism has become a religious movement" while he does "not believe that any specific form of religion has a veto in determining who is or is not a political conservative in a secular society."^[33]

LGBT issues[link]

Sullivan has largely supported a liberal definition of gay rights, which he articulated in his book Virtually Normal. In it, Sullivan examines and criticizes mainstream liberal, conservative, and the "prohibitionist" (far right) and "liberationist" (far left) political views on homosexuality. He argues for a policy that supports privacy rights and equal government treatment, but does not support private sector anti-discrimination laws.

Sullivan has been critical of civil unions, which he has dubbed "marriage lite." He has argued that civil unions will only serve to weaken the unique status of marriage, not only for gays and lesbians, but also for heterosexuals.

In the 2004 election, Sullivan criticized the Republican Party for what he saw as its political exploitation of a despised minority:

I've been trying to think of what to say about what appears to be the enormous success the Republicans had in using gay couples' rights to gain critical votes in key states. In eight more states now, gay couples have no relationship rights at all. Their legal ability to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to have legal protections for their children has been gutted. If you are a gay couple living in Alabama, you know one thing: your family has no standing under the law; and it can and will be violated by strangers. I'm not surprised by this. When you put a tiny and despised minority up for a popular vote, the minority usually loses.^[34]

In 2001, it came to light that Sullivan had posted online anonymous advertisements for unprotected anal sex, preferably with "other HIV-positive men".^[35] Liberal gay critics took Sullivan to task for this in light of his public statements that the AIDS crisis was over,^[36] and for having criticised President Clinton's "incautious behaviour".^[37] This criticism was in turn objected to by Salon's Cliff Rothman, who argued that it was a violation of Sullivan's privacy to publish information about his sex life, and that Sullivan's critics were attempting to punish him for his political views.^[38]

While he has long advocated same-sex marriage, Sullivan has drawn criticism for his 2006 doubts on monogamy:^[39][40][41]

For me the interesting point came when Dan and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy — especially in marriages — is often the best policy. Momogamy [sic] is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don't mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation — those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution — both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards.^[42]

Sullivan opposes hate crime laws, arguing that they undermine freedom of speech and equal protection.^[43] He also opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, arguing that it will, "not make much of a difference" and stated that the "gay rights establishment" was wrong to oppose a version of the bill that did not include gender identity.^[44]

War on terror[link]

Sullivan supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, and was initially hawkish in the war on terror, arguing that weakness would embolden terrorists. Immediately following the September 11 attacks in 2001, he wrote a controversial essay for The Sunday Times, in which he stated, "The middle part of the country — the great red zone that voted for Bush — is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead — and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column."^[45] In an 14 October 2001 post, Sullivan announced that recent anthrax attacks had sealed his support for war on Iraq, including the possible use of nuclear weaponry by the United States.

However, Sullivan harshly criticized the Bush administration for its prosecution of the wars, especially regarding the numbers of troops, protection of munitions, and treatment of prisoners. Sullivan strongly opposes the use of torture against detainees in U.S. custody and has had heated disputes with Heather Mac Donald^[46] and fellow British-American John Derbyshire, among others, on that issue. Though Sullivan believes that enemy combatants in the war on terror should not be given status as prisoners of war because "terrorists are not soldiers,"^[47] he believes that the U.S. government must abide by the rules of war — in particular, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions — when dealing with such detainees.^[48]

In recent times, Andrew Sullivan has changed his position on the Iraq war and described it as a mistake. On 27 October 2006 edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, he described conservatives and Republicans who refused to admit they had been wrong to support the Iraq War as "cowards." On 26 February 2008 he wrote on his blog: "After 9/11, I was clearly blinded by fear of al Qaeda and deluded by the overwhelming military superiority of the US and the ease of democratic transitions in Eastern Europe into thinking we could simply fight our way to victory against Islamist terror. I wasn't alone. But I was surely wrong."^[49]

Sullivan authored an opinion piece featured as the cover article of the October 2009 edition of The Atlantic magazine ("Dear President Bush").^[50] This piece called upon former President Bush to take personal responsibility for the incidents and practices of torture that occurred during his administration as part of the "War on Terror".

On Israel[link]

Sullivan states that he has "always been a Zionist".^[51] However, in February 2009, Sullivan wrote that he could no longer take neo-conservatism seriously:^[52]

[N]eo-conservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right [...] But America is not Israel. And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.

In January 2010, Sullivan blogged that he is "moving toward" the idea of "a direct American military imposition" of a two state solution on Israel, with NATO troops enforcing "the borders of the new states of Palestine and Israel". He commented, "I too am sick of the Israelis [...] I’m sick of having a great power like the US being dictated to".^[53] His post was criticized by Noah Pollak of Commentary, who referred to it as "crazy", "heady stuff" based on "hubris".^[54]

In February 2010, Leon Wieseltier in The New Republic suggested that his former friend and colleague Sullivan had a "venomous hostility toward Israel and Jews", and was "either a bigot, or just moronically insensitive" towards the Jewish people.^[55] Sullivan rejected the accusation, and was defended by some writers, while others at least partly supported Wieseltier.^[56]

War on drugs[link]

Sullivan has written blog entries criticizing the excesses of the War on Drugs. He argued that studies showed alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis, yet the former is legal and the latter is illegal.^[57][58] He gave examples purporting to show that the government has used torture in the War on Drugs.^[59] Regarding the cannabis prohibition, he wrote,

For my part, I find the attempt to ban any naturally growing plant to be an attack on reality, and a denial of some of the most basic freedoms. I guess that's why today's GOP is so in favor of it.^[60]

On 13 July 2009, Sullivan was ticketed within the Cape Cod National Seashore for possession of marijuana, but the case was dismissed the following month.^[61] This has led to accusations of preferential treatment.^[62]

Iran[link]

Sullivan devoted a significant amount of blog space to covering the allegations of fraud and related protests after the 2009 Iranian presidential election. Francis Wilkinson of The Week stated that Sullivan’s “coverage — and that journalism term takes on new meaning here — of the uprising in Iran was nothing short of extraordinary. ‘Revolutionary’ might be a better word.”^[63]

Sullivan was inspired by the Iranian people’s reactions to the election results and used his blog as a hub of information. He repeatedly spoke of the significance of the moment in history. Among them:

This is an immense story of human freedom in a critical part of the world. After Obama's election, it is the biggest event in world history this year. And letting these courageous protestors know that we are with them is vital. Telling the world of their integrity and bravery against the thuggery of these theocratic despots is God's work. The blogosphere can lead the way, but the MSM is catching on.^[64]

Because of the media blackout in Iran, Iranian Twitter accounts were a large source of information. Sullivan frequently quoted and linked to Nico Pitney of The Huffington Post.^[65]

Sarah Palin[link]

Sullivan has been a vocal critic of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin since John McCain named her as his running mate in 2008. During an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher on 18 September 2008, Sullivan called Palin's nomination "a joke and a farce" and "something that should be dismissed out of hand as the most irresponsible act any candidate has ever made in the history of this country." He frequently accused John McCain of poor judgment in his selection and his campaign of inadequate vetting of her.^[66][67]

In August, 2008, Sullivan wrote on his blog about a widespread rumor circulating on the Internet that Palin faked her fifth pregnancy, the baby was actually her daughter's, and that this was motivated by political reasons.^[68] After a photograph surfaced in which she appeared to be pregnant in the appropriate time period,^[69] Sullivan admitted that she was most likely pregnant, but "not in the last year" and continued with questions about whether she actually gave birth to the child.^[70] Politico called him "a man possessed" in his support for the theory, noting intensive coverage of the issue in his blog over a short period.^[71] The Wall Street Journal reported that according to people familiar with discussions among Palin's advisers, Palin considered a libel suit against him over the issue, but eventually decided against it.^[72]

Sullivan contends that Palin is a habitual liar, which he has chronicled in a series entitled “The Odd Lies of Sarah Palin.” As of 30 June 2009, Sullivan has claimed that his blog had refuted 29 public statements made by Palin. Of Sullivan’s perceived “odd lies” of Palin, he states on his blog:

But I did learn of several new odd lies – in the same classic pattern of categorically denying things that are categorically and patently and verifiably true. This is not, as this blog noted in the campaign, the typical political lie, the Clintonian parsing of truth or lying when the truth cannot easily be discovered. It is the statement that it is night when it is clearly, by universal aggreement [sic], three o'clock in the afternoon.^[67]

Religion[link]

Sullivan identifies himself as a faithful Catholic while disagreeing with some aspects of the Vatican's position. In Virtually Normal (ISBN 0-679-42382-6), he argues that the Bible forbids same-sex sexual activity only when it is linked to prostitution or pagan ritual. During an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher on 19 September 2008, Sullivan described himself as a "religious secularist", and challenged Maher on criticisms of religion and people of faith, saying, "To dismiss all religious people based on the actions of the most literalist dumb ones, I think is bigotry."

His views led him to have concerns about the election of Pope Benedict XVI. In Time Magazine for 24 April 2005 in an article entitled, "The Vicar of Orthodoxy", Sullivan stated his criticisms of the new pope.^[73] He expressed his view that the current pope is opposed to the modern world and women's rights, and deems gays and lesbians to be innately disposed to evil. He has, however, agreed with Benedict's assertion that reason is an integral element of faith.

Sullivan takes a moderate approach to religion; as such he vocally rejects fundamentalism of any kind, including both fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, and describes himself as a "dogged defender of pluralism and secularism". He defended religious moderates in a series of exchanges with atheist Sam Harris in which Harris maintained that religious moderates provide cover for fundamentalists and make it impossible for anyone to effectively oppose them.^[74]

In a blog entry on 12 March 2009, Sullivan summarised his faith journey to date in this way:

Perhaps the institution dearest to me, the Catholic church, greeted the emergence of gay people in a way that never truly reflected the compassion of Jesus or the good faith arguments many of us offered as a way forward. This was sad to me, but not life-changing. I know the Holy Spirit takes time, as James Alison reminds us. But then came the sex abuse crisis. Like many others, the truth about the evil in the heart of the church, and the cooptation and enabling of that evil, and the refusal to take real responsibility for the evil, simply left me gasping for air. I realize now that my Catholic identity never recovered, even if my faith endures in a far more modest and difficult way.^[75]

Works[link]

As author

• Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (1995). Knopf. ISBN 0-679-42382-6.
• Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex and Survival (1998). Knopf. ISBN 0-679-45119-6.
• The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back (2006). HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-018877-4.
• Intimations Pursued: The Voice of Practice in the Conversation of Michael Oakeshott (2007). Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-0-907845-28-7

As editor

• Same-Sex Marriage Pro & Con: A Reader (1997). Vintage. ISBN 0-679-77637-0. First edition
• Same-Sex Marriage Pro & Con: A Reader (2004) . Vintage. ISBN 1-4000-7866-0. Second edition
• The View From Your Window: The world as seen by readers of one blog (2009). Blurb.com

References[link]

External links[link]

• The Dish, Andrew Sullivan's blog at The Daily Beast
• Column archive (2009-2009) at The Atlantic
  • Why I Blog, November 2008
• Appearances on C-SPAN
  • Booknotes interview with Sullivan on Virtually Normal, 1 October 1995.
  • C-SPAN Q&A interview with Sullivan, 15 October 2006
• Andrew Sullivan on Charlie Rose
• Andrew Sullivan at the Internet Movie Database
• Works by or about Andrew Sullivan in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Andrew Sullivan collected news and commentary at The New York Times
• World’s Best Blogger?, Harvard Magazine, May–June 2011

The Honourable Tony Clement PC, MP
Member of the Canadian Parliament for Parry Sound—Muskoka
Incumbent
Assumed office 2006
Preceded by	Andy Mitchell
Personal details
Born	Tony Peter Panayi (1961-01-27) January 27, 1961 (age 51) Manchester, United Kingdom
Nationality	Canada Cyprus United Kingdom
Political party	Conservative
Spouse(s)	Lynne Golding; 3 children
Residence	Port Sydney, Ontario[1]
Alma mater	University of Toronto
Profession	Politician, lawyer, small business owner
Portfolio	President of the Treasury Board Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
Religion	Christian[2]

Tony Peter Clement, PC, MP (born January 27, 1961) is a Canadian federal politician, President of the Treasury Board, Minister for the Federal Economic Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor) and Member of Parliament of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Clement had previously served as an Ontario cabinet minister; most recently as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care under premiers Mike Harris and Ernie Eves.

Moving to federal politics, he was a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada after its formation from the merger of the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance parties in 2003, but ultimately lost to Stephen Harper. Clement won the seat of Parry Sound—Muskoka in the 2006 federal election, defeating incumbent Liberal cabinet minister Andy Mitchell. The Conservatives formed government in the election and Clement was appointed Minister of Health and Minister for FedNor.