ccNSO feedback on ICANN Strategic Plan

["Chris Disspain" <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings,

 

Below is the ccNSO feedback on the ICANN Draft Strategic Plan.

 

Regards,

 

Chris Disspain

Chair, ccNSO

 

ccNSO Feedback to ICANN Draft

Strategic Plan 2003-04 to 2006-07

 

 

The ccNSO makes the following comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan:-

 

1.      The ccNSO notes the comments on the consultation process in the 
Amsterdam Consultation document. A number of
those comments are set out below and are endorsed by the ccNSO:

"That following the receipt of all comments via the public comment list by 
February 28, the ICANN staff should release a
new version of the ICANN Strategic Plan. It is preferable in the future to have 
two parts  - an operational plan and an
ongoing multi year strategic plan. The release of this next draft of the ICANN 
Strategic Plan should be sufficiently
ahead of the Mar del Plata April ICANN meeting to allow the ICANN Community to 
review, consult and come to Mar del Plata
ready to offer final comments.

That an open public forum/meeting should be arranged for Mar del Plata where 
final comments on the next draft of the
ICANN Strategic Plan can be received by the ICANN staff and Board prior to 
their adopting a version of the ICANN
Strategic Plan.

That the period following the ICANN Mar del Plata meeting in April and prior to 
the next ICANN face-to-face meeting in
Luxemburg in July, should be spent with the ICANN Community considering the 
process and scheduling of ongoing
consultation on ICANN's Strategic Plan. It should be expected to agree an 
ongoing consultation process in Luxemburg.

That following an agreed consultation process, consultation on future aspects 
of the ongoing ICANN Strategic Plan should
work to that process.  It is suggested that a 6 month cycle be established with 
the first 6 months spent developing and
extending the current strategic plan and the next 6 months spent developing an 
annual operational plan and accompanying
budget."

The ccNSO further notes the comments made by ICANN CEO Paul Twomey during the 
gNSO council meeting on 17 Feb 2005 and
believes that the process and logistics he outlined would be an acceptable 
method of moving forwards.

 

2.      The ccNSO notes the 'specific substance recommendations' in the 
Amsterdam Consultation document. A number of
those recommendations are set out below and are endorsed by the ccNSO:

 

                   "Security and Stability:


Security and Stability are priorities 


*         Broadly supported; however, agreed broadly that ICANN has a limited 
and focused role in Security

*         Need clarification on what is meant by "facilitator" of network 
security

*         ICANN not convening the broad security "industry"/does convene the 
Internet DNS "players"/appropriate focus on
security may be DNSSec

*         Did not support ICANN undertaking research role

 

Root Server Relationships:

*         The relationships with the root server operators is an important area

*         Agreements with the Root Server operators are needed/light weight 
agreements/approach

 

Support that there are other/maybe preferred ways to accomplish objectives of 
"facilitating" network security

*         More examination and input from stakeholders needed before moving 
ahead with some of ideas, including
unrestricted fund; how to finance, and what accountability mechanisms will exist

 

                   Independent Bottom Up Coordination:

*         Strong support for the ensuring that the role of staff is supportive 
to the role of the stakeholders: e.g.
staff supported versus staff driven

*         ICANN is not "staff centric" but is the sum of its constituents

*         Staff work/consideration does not substitute for open consultation 
and participation of stakeholders
throughout the processes

*         Some questions that remain to be addressed are:

*      How to increase all forms of participation; address ongoing increase in 
representation.

*      How to ensure efficiency/accountability

*      How to determine consensus as ICANN grows 

 

                   Global Stakeholder Representation:

*         Support for the need to broaden and deepen participation, with 
special recognition of need for participation
by stakeholders from developing countries

*         Role ICANN should play in that was not agreed/although a role was 
supported. More discussion on options and
methodology is needed, including how to engage existing regional organizations, 
such as regional TLDS, RIRs, cc
organizations, ISOC, etc. 

*         Unrestricted Fund raises many questions; accountability; 
sustainability; sourcing; etc. Discussion needed
about all options, including collaboration with other regional groups: regional 
TLD organizations, RIRs, ISOC, etc.

*         Strong input that consultation processes across all stakeholders must 
be improved

*         Consultation should include cross community interaction, including 
interaction with Board/staff; and including
but not limited to a public comment process

*         As more consultation is developed, support is for a use of technology 
blended with regional [and existing ]
global meetings."

 

3.      Identified Objectives from ICANN Stakeholders - Strategic Plan, P15

 

The ccNSO accepts that identified objectives 1, 2, 3, and 6 are relevant to 
ccTLDs. However the ccNSO does not, at this
stage, identify with objectives 5, 7 and 8. 

 

a) Objective 5 - Significantly expand available resources to assist developing 
nation internet communities with
education and technical coordination: The ccNSO is not clear that this comes 
within ICANN's mandate. Clarity about this
'objective' is required before the ccNSO can meaningfully comment. For example, 
does this objective imply an increase to
existing ICANN resources or does it imply that ICANN will fund already existing 
entities to undertake the task?

 

b) Objective 7 - Actively promote consumer interests through information and 
service: The ccNSO requests more
information on this objective as it affects ccTLDs. If the objective is 
intended to suggest that ICANN has any role in
informing or assisting ccTLD registrants or registrars, the ccNSO believes that 
such a role is not an appropriate one
for ICANN. However the objective of informing or assisting gTLD registrants or 
registrars is appropriate.

 

c) Objective 8 - Effectively educate consumers on how to obtain resources for 
dispute resolution, consumer protection
and law enforcement: The ccNSO does not accept that that this objective is 
within the ICANN mandate to the extent that
implies activity by ICANN in local ccTLD internet communities. However, 
undertaking such an activity in respect to gTLDs
is appropriate.

 

4.      Utilise efficient request tracking and response systems to enhance 
ICANN's effectiveness - Strategic Plan, P 21

 

The ccNSO welcomes and endorses the proposals to strengthen and improve ICANN 
and IANA core services.

 

a) The ccNSO agrees that ICANN must provide timely, reliable, and accurate 
responses to operational requests, and be
ever responsive to evolving needs. 

It is the experience of many ccTLDs that it is often accuracy of communication 
that is the problem. It is critical that
communication received from ICANN staff is accurate and is correctly 
understood. 

 

b) The ccNSO welcomes the implementation of a professional request tracking and 
response management system to improve
turnaround times across the operation but cautions against a system that 
provides mere automated responses which have a
tendency to be both uninformative and frustrating. Whilst a request tracking 
and response management system is an
important goal it should not be seen as a replacement for interaction with a 
human being.

 

c) The ccNSO notes that ICANN staff will continually refine its systems, 
capitalising on feedback from stakeholders, to
maintain ICANN's effectiveness as the single and authoritative source. The 
ccNSO stands ready to assist and provide
feedback through its IANA Working Group.

 

5.      Establish stable relationships with all necessary and relevant 
participants in the management of the systems of
Internet identifiers.. - Strategic Plan, P 25

 

a) In general terms, the ccNSO is in favour of a 'formalised relationship' with 
ccTLDs through Accountability Frameworks
and is currently working on a series of guidelines through its Accountability 
Framework Working Group.

 

b) The ccNSO notes the statement that "an agreement would identify where 
authoritative decision rights lie concerning
ccTLDs, and the history of that authority, to help maintain accountability for 
operations" and recommends that ICANN
staff consider the Scope Matrix (Annex C of the ICANN By Laws) which sets out 
the current agreed understanding of
decision rights.

 

c) The ccNSO notes the statement that the frameworks of accountability follow 
the recommendations contained in the
February 2000 Governmental Advisory Committee principles for the administration 
and delegation of ccTLDs. This is of
some concern to the ccNSO since those principles have not been adopted by the 
ICANN Board or endorsed by ccTLDs or the
ccNSO and, in any event, have been reviewed by the GAC itself with the 
intention, presumably, that they be replaced. The
ccNSO is currently considering the new draft GAC principles and looks forward 
to working closely with ICANN staff and
the GAC to ascertain the practical consequences of the GAC recommendations (or 
any amendment thereto) and finding
solutions to any problems that may arise.

 

6.      ccTLD contributions - Strategic Plan, p 61

 

a) the ccNSO notes that several ICANN stakeholders in consultations have urged 
that the goal of a 35% budget
contribution by ccTLDs should not be abandoned at this stage. The ccNSO 
believes that holding to a % target is
unworkable and serves only to complicate the budget and make it less 
meaningful. The ccNSO believes that discussions on
ccTLD budget contributions should commence with no pre-conceived notions about 
any 'correct' overall contribution.

 

b) the ccNSO notes that ICANN projects an increase in ccTLD contributions of 
$200,000 to $800,000 for the upcoming
fiscal year and looks to the ccNSO to provide a projection of funding and fee 
structure for the following years. The
ccNSO believes that the actual or projected contribution is irrelevant to the 
discussions that need to take place to
agree the methodology and quantum of any ccTLD contributions and looks forward 
to working with ICANN staff on this
matter.