ccNSO feedback on ICANN Strategic Plan
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.