My two cents (English translation of comments from Sebastian Ricciardi submitted 22 Jul 06)

["Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king@xxxxxxxxx>]

Buenos Aires, July 19, 2006

 

Attn.:

 

President?s Strategy Committee

 

 

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Above all, I applaud the inclusion of several languages in this consultation.  
Without
a doubt this is a step forward, not only in the process of internationalization 
of
ICANN, but also as a sign of the organization?s true commitment to all sectors 
of the
community.

 

Although I am a member of the At Large Advisory Committee, the Argentinean 
Chapter of
the Internet Society and the Advisory Committee of the PIR, I am writing to you 
in my
own name as an Internet user, in the confidence that I represent in some way 
some of
the concerns and interests of users of the Internet in general.

 

With regard to your specific questions:

*       What are some of the main challenges to ensuring continued stable and 
secure
operations of the Internet's domain name and IP addressing system, and are 
there steps
that could be taken to improve this?

Without a doubt, one of the greatest challenges is to strengthen the current 
model.
The organizations involved in the operation of the system of domain names have 
made a
valuable contribution up to now to the development of the Network.  Even if we 
were to
consider possible improvements to the system ? and we shall do that during the 
course
of this missive ? the value of the multi-stakeholder model is unquestionable.

In light of the recent process of the World Summit on the Information Society, 
we have
seen interest on the part of sovereign States in the evolution of the Internet 
Network
and the importance that such States attribute to its development.  Those of us 
who
have had the good fortune to participate in this process have been able to 
observe the
manner in which the concerns of many government representatives have dissipated 
to the
extent we have become informed and studied the problems at hand and the role 
that such
organizations as ICANN, ISOC and NRO have played in recent times.

The challenge is clearly to achieve true internationalization of the model,
strengthening the participation of all players in the international community, 
as well
as the general public ? presented with a broad range of options for 
participation,
through educational programs, the strengthening of technical capabilities and 
the use
of multiple languages.

Likewise, the speedy incorporation of the system of International Domain Names 
(IDN?s)
is essential to having a truly inclusive and global Network.

The main difficulty that we will encounter along the way will likely be the 
need to
have these changes come from the initiative of those of us participating in the
process of development of ICANN policies.  We are the ones who must understand 
the
challenge and take concrete measures to face it, instead of waiting for them to 
be
imposed on us.  What we need, then, is to make the community aware of these 
challenges
and promote a true cultural change.  The more we think that the current 
operation of
the system is perfect or that it best satisfies our interests, the harder it 
will be
for us to be able to change it.

The preparation of a proper, clear and defined strategy for launching new 
generic Top
Level Domains also constitutes a fundamental aspect of ensuring stable and 
secure
continuity of the operation of the system of Internet domain names and IP 
addresses.
It is necessary to overcome the problems that have been broached in the past, 
based on
the introduction of new gTLD?s, with a clear and consensual policy among all
interested participants.

Ultimately, it is certainly becoming ever more necessary to analyze the 
technical
risks that the administration of the system of domain names involves, reinforce 
the
work of the security committee and monitor any marketing practices that may 
affect the
normal functioning of the system. 

*       Members of the Committee accept that there are a number of 
administrative
challenges that ICANN faces as it is a unique model of bottom up participation 
and
coordination of policy decision making. What are examples of how other global
organizations have met similar challenges? Can experiences in other 
organizations be
applied to ICANN to inform consideration of how best to serve the global 
community?

Without a doubt, the experience of the Internet Society may be very useful in 
this
regard.  Not only due to the openness, breadth and transparency of the work of 
the
IETF, but also due to the habitual consultations that ISOC makes among its 
members
through the discussion lists and the survey system.  The recent program of ISOC
Ambassadors, and the program underway on financing initiatives from the 
chapters are
excellent examples of how an organization with members scattered around the 
world can
succeed in incorporating ideas, opinions and work by members of the world 
community. 

*       Is the organization's ability to scale internationally affected by its 
legal
personality being based in a specific jurisdiction?

The fact that the organization has its legal status based on a specific 
jurisdiction
should not present any problems of scalability, although it would be desirable 
for
some type of consensual agreement to exist with the host country on the 
application of
local laws in some of the critical aspects of the administration of the system 
of
domain names and distribution of IP addresses, such as the operation of root 
servers,
aspects of intellectual property, corporate governance rules, etc.

*       Given ICANN's narrow technical coordination mission and 
responsibilities, how
should ICANN respond to relevant issues or challenges deriving from the WSIS
decisions, including those related to Internet governance?

It has become extremely important to separate, among the questions that ICANN
addresses in fulfilling its role, those questions involving technical 
coordination
from political questions that may be subject to government control. 

Many times I have heard, in conversations with members of different SO?s or 
advisory
committees, discussions concerning what role should be reserved for governments.
Without a doubt, questions that specifically relate to technical operation 
should not
require significant government treatment, although we should recognize the 
existence
of other questions, such as those relative to intellectual property, in which 
the
governments have a valid interest that must be taken into account. 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to put aside the phrase ?policy development 
process?
to incorporate the phrase ?technical coordination process?, so as not to create
greater confusion.

There has been great confusion at the CMSI concerning the nature of these 
questions,
and it is partly for this reason that it became so difficult to reach an 
agreement
that would be more operative than the current Tunisian Agenda.

*       Specifically, how should ICANN further enhance cooperation of all ICANN
stakeholders on those Internet governance issues that fall into ICANN's scope of
activities?

1) Giving more room to national states to tackle the topics that interest them 
and
which fall within their area of interest, but not beyond.  In questions of pure
technical coordination, the GAC should not have greater relevance than the rest 
of the
participants. 

2) Giving more room to the At Large community, once it is duly organized, to 
prevent
deceptions, such as those in the past, and to stimulate its participation in the
process of technical coordination.

*       What can ICANN do to further improve the value that the GAC and its 
individual
members offer to the multi stakeholder framework and addressing public policy
concerns?

N/A

*       What can be done to assist in the evolution of a more widely informed
participation from all regions from all interested stakeholders, including
governmental representatives?

The idea to hold regional meetings, which has been circulating for some time, 
is no
doubt attractive, and would serve to stimulate participation among all 
interested
parties. 

On the other hand, the regional liaisons that have been recently designated can 
do
important work.  Nowadays, wonderful work is being done for the establishment 
of the
Regional At Large organizations, and they are showing a great ability to tackle 
the
various problems presented.

*       Are there activities or steps that would build on existing processes to
continue to enhance global accessibility to the transparency of ICANN's 
processes and
input into the decision-making processes?

 

 

1) Incorporate different languages as a general standard for the issuance of 
working
documents and public discussions.  LACNIC has successfully completed a very 
ambitious
process in this regard, without making great economic sacrifices.  The language
barrier is often undervalued at ICANN.

2) Publish the agenda of the readings ahead of time and require each SO and AC 
to act
accordingly.

3) To stimulate regional initiatives ? through meetings and the work of the 
regional
liaisons ? particularly in Africa and Latin America.

4) To keep a public calendar accessible on the web, of the topics that are under
analysis or in discussion, and the steps to be taken. 

5) To enormously improve the site  <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org and its
availability in various languages.

6) To promote and finance regional initiatives relative to the study of the use 
of the
Internet Network.

7) To establish a policy of communications, clear and consistent institutional 
and
public relationships whose purpose is to depoliticize the work of ICANN, and 
have all
interested parties understand the importance of their eminently technical role.

Finally, I would like to thank the members of this committee for the important 
work
they are doing, in consulting the President on the formulation of strategies, 
and for
the valuable time they are dedicating to this task.  I have no doubt, due to 
the tenor
of the questions that have been asked, that active participation by all 
interested
parties in the technical coordination plan is one of their greatest concerns, 
which
will be reflected in the reports they will soon be signing.

 

Sincerely,

Sebastián J. Ricciardi Lima