Thor Lundh's Input, questions and concerns with the "ICANN 2010-13 STRATEGIC PLAN"

["Thor R. Lundh" <rea.ltd@xxxxxx>]

Confirm Code;  aceeab7f35706a29

Dear Theresa  Swinehart,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on ICANNS Strategic plan for  
2010-13.  With that said it is well written and in great detail as  
well.  I know how much ICANN has put their heart into this undertaking  
of historic epic proportion. Therefore it is with only concerns and no  
conviction that a concern is a fact are the following.
Money: Who pays for this and why should the United States once again  
carry the burden for the world and change what was in fact developed  
by the United States Government and Citizens.
The following is a concern expressed by the NTIA in 2006.  I have not  
seen the cost analysis as of today. Specially which part of the  
Department of Commerce is reviewing this new plan and or implementing  
it in conjunction with ICANN?  Do all countries and their respective  
departments have the same role as the US department of commerce?  The  
plan does not identify this anywhere. Furthermore how long and at what  
cost will the transition from IPV4 to 6 be? What will be the single  
biggest change for the United States and our citizens?
"Policy question concerning IPv6 deployment in the United States is
whether the incremental benefits of adopting IPv6 justify the costs of
converting the large embedded IPv4 base to IPv6 on an accelerated
basis.11
Because of those conversion costs, most observers believe that there
will be a considerable transition period during which IPv4 and IPv6-
based networks will coexist.12 During that transition, firms will incur
costs to ensure interoperability among equipment, applications, and
networks, both domestically and internationally. Simultaneous operation
of IPv4- and IPv6 may also require additional effort to ensure
communications security and to protect networks from attack. These
transition costs, in addition to the more obvious direct costs of  
converting
to IPv6, should be considered when assessing the potential benefits of
IPv6. Enterprises must determine whether the net present value of the
cumulative benefits of deploying IPv6 will exceed the costs of migrating
from IPv4 to IPv6." NTIA

How will the NIST be involved as this as the fastest growing segment  
of the New internet and public market? It would seem  
telecommunications are not included in the plan at this time. Is this  
true and if so why and if not, why not?
Is this  constitutional in the United States?  It does seem there  
could be one or more potential places of concern.  For example;   
freedom of speech is already being copyrighted or patented and  
licensed for a fact by and through the internet and the new structure  
seems to secure those rights are in fact at risk.  I read absolutely  
all of the information and have applied a model to this effect and it  
does need to be addressed and or clarified as ICANNS mandate and  
mission is on the surface and in model is a conflict within itself.
Now then, Please understand, I fully support ICANN but since China has  
already declared the internet a strategic weapon who in the ICANN  
organization has the authority to act in this event and how does the  
new plan account for the mandate and mission which surely will come  
into the center of this issue with China and other countries that  
share this view? Now ICANN never mentions regulate, however it is at  
least on the surface disingenuous as that is in fact the true nature  
of ICANN in the mandate, mission and scope of authority. So why not  
just say regulate?
Now the plan comment deadline on ICANNs web paige has some typos I  
hope, as it says input stops on 1 21 09( I think it should be 1 21  
2010). This does not seem to correlate with the dates below on the page.
I thank ICANN for the opportunity to submit concerns and I applaud  
ICANNS leadership and am personally grateful.
Please do not misunderstand concerns for a disagreement or lack of  
support for ICANN as that is not the case whatsoever.
Keep up the wonderful work and if possible I look forward to your  
response Theresa,
With the most respect, take care and be well.

Sincerely,
Thor R. Lundh

P.S. Tell Tina Dam I said hello!