StratPlan Comments

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To:     ICANN Public Comment Process

CC:     ccNSO Council, GNSO Council, ASO Council, ALAC, Amsterdam
Consultation on the StratPlan

Re:     ICANN Strategic Plan 2004-05 to 2006-07

We appreciate the posting of the StratPlan 7.3; while the time was
regrettably limited to allow full review by the broad community, we do
appreciate the support of the Board to ensure that there was a public
comment period, even of this short duration. Thus, we have reviewed the
StratPlan 7.3 and offer comments that are representative of our
individual views. We do believe, however, that you will find support
from those who participated in the Amsterdam Consultation on the
StratPlan to these comments. We simply did not have time to gather
broader comments, but will continue to consult with interested
stakeholders on our contribution.

ICANN should keep the public comment list open so that stakeholders can
give thoughtful input and concrete suggestions. 

Our comments cover four items:

1. Process related to the StratPlan

With regard to version 7.3 of 'ICANN Strategic Plan 2004-05 to 2006-07',
we commend ICANN staff for their efforts in incorporating community
feedback in the short time period since the Mar del Plata meetings.  We
believe that version 7.3 of the plan provides future opportunities to
address major concerns expressed in the public comment process and that
additional changes to the plan would be best deferred to the next cycle
of revisions starting in July so that efforts can now be focused on the
development and finalization of an operational plan and budget for the
2005-06 fiscal year.

In addition, we recommend that between now and the Luxembourg ICANN
meeting in July, 2005 key stakeholders already involved in the Amsterdam
Consultation be leveraged to further develop a draft process proposal
that can be vetted with the broader community and that a pilot/trial run
of that process be implemented starting in July.  We note that this is
consistent with comments and suggestions offered in the Amsterdam
Consultation on the ICANN Strategic Plan and with comments made by
contributors and attendees at the three Consultations in Mar del Plata. 

By adopting a pilot/trial approach, this will ensure that as we learn
from the process, we will be able to incorporate appropriate
modifications.  This will, we believe, build confidence by the ICANN
stakeholders in the StratPlan and Operational Planning processes.

2. Stakeholder feedback

We appreciate that Version 7.3 notes that there are several areas where
there were significant concerns and questions from the Stakeholders.
The Plan proposes that these areas be set aside for further consultation
before operational planning be undertaken for their implementation. We
support this approach and believe it is reflective of the input that was
received in the consultations to date. We also believe that ICANN will
benefit from taking this approach and suggest that consultations begin
immediately and continue beyond Luxembourg as necessary.   We offer two
examples: a) in the area of "clarifying the nature of ICANN's regional
presence", ICANN could invite specific proposals on how to address
regional participation and outreach from the community of stakeholders,
especially, but not limited to, the RIRs, regional ccTLD organizations,
RALOs and other existing organizations who have presence in the regions
already; b) in the area of determining the appropriate roles and
activities for ICANN in security, we support the importance of security
and recognize the complexity of this area.

3. Additional consultation

Since there are areas where the plan makes it clear that more
consultation and further work is needed, it is important to make it
clear that there will not be implementations of actions that bias the
future outcome of these decisions. Yet, it will be important to have
some funding set aside to address further research and examination of
options. Thus, we suggest that while some operational planning funds
should be identified, it needs to be clear that long term investments
will not be made until these areas are more fully addressed through the
Operational and Strategic Planning process. That may mean that funds are
"earmarked" for future use, but clearly identified as "reserve".  Again,
we fully support that some amount of operational budget is needed to
complete the work in areas where further consultation is needed but we
believe it would be wise to avoid investing in space or staff resources
that might later have to be changed.

Consistent with comments made in earlier consultations, we support the
idea that to the greatest degree possible, ICANN work with and through
existing organizations to strengthen and support their role in their
communities. Where possible, additional and new activities should be
"trialed" with existing organizations before undertaking the creation of
new structures. Capitalizing on support of existing organizations
engaged in similar work already, ICANN can actually speed the delivery
of information, communication, and services and thus enhance broader
participation. 

4. Segregated/"unrestricted" funds for security and developing country
participation

This is a challenging area since it implies many new areas of oversight,
accountability, and stakeholder consultation. While it deserves more
examination, we also note that it would be advisable for ICANN to change
its process on oversight of areas like this to include representation of
the Supporting Organizations, Board members and other members of the
community with relevant insight.


We offer our ongoing support in this process.

Marilyn Cade, Mark McFadden, Chuck Gomes
Three participants in the Amsterdam Consultation