Comments on the ICANN Draft Five Year Operating Plan

[Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would first like to thank the ICANN staff for the considerable effort
they have put into developing the Draft 5 Year Operating Plan. Although a
member of both the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the
Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG), and currently representing the
later on the GNSO Council, these comments and questions are solely my own
and do not necessarily reflect the concerns or positions of any
organization of which I am a member.



First, a general comment. While I genuinely like the Metric / Dependency /
Phasing design of the Plan, in the future I would like to see more
specificity in the Key Performance Indicators (Metrics) and Phasing
sections of the Plan. Instead of mentioning the criteria in general terms,
specific targeted goals, often numeric in nature, should be indicated. This
document should be useful not only as a guide going forward for ICANN staff
and management, but should also be purposed for use by the community in
evaluating the performance of staff and management.  The metrics and
phasing text in this document is too vague to allow for its extensive use
in this manner.





Questions / Comments





1. I applaud strategic goal 1.1 (S.G. 1.1), to “further globalize and
regionalize ICANN functions.”  Yet I am concerned that the only mention of
languages is a commitment to making “meeting sessions available in multiple
languages; languages / scripts represented in ICANN community
participation”.  ICANN needs to do better.



I’m not sure what entirely is meant by the later part of this commitment.
If it is a commitment for ICANN to assist community groups such as SO’s and
AC’s to better operate in multiple language I applaud this offering. No
longer should or can ICANN afford to operate at any level solely in the
English language. Specifics as to the programmatic assistance ICANN intends
to provide the community would be most welcome. I am concerned that there
is no specific mention of any aspect of languages in the phasing section of
S.G. 1.1. Languages themselves are not even mentioned in S.G. 1.2 (regional
engagement), which itself must be an error of omission.



I am also concerned about the term “multiple languages”. Simply translating
meetings and materials into the six official United Nations languages is
not sufficient. There are ten languages in the world with over 100 million
native speakers; 60 languages with over 20 million native speakers. If
ICANN truly wants to globalize and regionalize ICANN functions it needs to
commit to produce basic materials in as many languages as possible and to
expand intelligently the number of languages it offers more extensive
services, such as real time translation of meetings, in.



One can not participate in ICANN if one can not understand any of what is
going on. “One World / One Internet” is only a phrase unless and until
ICANN’s communications and participatory strategies encompass a truly
global linguistic commitment. The Finnish speaking teenager in Ivalo, the
Begali speaking grandma in Kolkata and the Korean speaking teacher in Yanji
all should have online access to basic ICANN documents in their native
tongue.



2. I am very concerned about the indication in the FY 17 Phasing of S.G.
1.3 that SO/AC special request processes are to be discontinued. At a time
when the ICANN community is being asked to do more and more, a reduced
financial commitment by ICANN to the community is unwise. Are there plans
to replace the special request process with other programs of financial
assistance? If so, what are they?



3. In the S.G. 3.3 portfolio mention is made of ICANN Technical University.
This institution is mentioned nowhere else in this document nor is indexed
by the major search engines. Please educate myself and the community on the
nature of our own I.T.U. and it’s proposed role in “developing a globally
diverse culture of expertise” (S.G. 3.3).



4. Although certainly supportive of S.G. 4.1 (“Encourage engagement with
the existing Internet governance ecosystem at national, regional and global
levels”) I question whether the single metric (“number of MOU’s with
international organizations with mutual recognition of roles with ICANN”)
in S.G. 4.1 is an exhaustive performance indicator for this S.G. Surely
engagement must extend beyond formal institution to institution agreements
and should include engagement and participation by community members, ICANN
staff and Board in the wider IG world and vice versa. Metrics for this type
of engagement should be developed and included in S.G. 4.



5. While certainly supporting the participation of more governments within
the GAC (sole metric for S.G. 4.2), I do question why this stakeholder is
receiving such special consideration in the five year draft plan as opposed
to other stakeholders. Indeed, much of Strategic Objective 4 (“Promote
ICANN’s Role and Multistakeholder Approach) is government and IGO centric
to the exclusion of all other stakeholders. This certainly is not true
multistakeholderism, a concept ICANN lauds in philosophy but often has
trouble implementing in practice.



I would suggest that ICANN needs to commit itself to helping strengthen the
commitment of all identifiable stakeholder groups to the global Internet
ecosystem, and not to give special consideration to a group, governments,
which are already privileged both in the ICANN governance structure and
elsewhere.



6. S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a “steward of the public interest” as
part of Strategic Objective 5: “ Develop and Implement a Global Public
Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN’s Mission”. The sole metric of S.G. 5.1
refers to a “common consensus based definition of public interest”. Does
such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it?  If not, how does
ICANN propose to develop one?





Thank you for considering these comments.



Kind Regards,



Edward Morris