<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] NCC Draft
The following represents a synthesis of the comments I received and
what was discussed on the NCC list. It does not represent a NCC
consensus document, because there has been no formal NCC vote. It
should, however, serve as an appropriate basis for discussion and
represents the views of active NCC memebrs that submitted comments
within the aloted time.
Harold Feld
DRAFT version 6 NCDNHC Revisions
Additions are marked with *****
Deletions are marked with []
Highlighted sections are marked with {{{{}}}}}
Highlighted items are under review.
Scope and mission of ICANN
In broad terms the Names Council (NC) agreed with the factual
description of ICANN's functions listed in "What ICANN Does" at: which
(in summary) cover:
1. General operational functions (such as IP address allocation,
maintaining the DNS root zone file).
2. gTLD administrative functions (such as registrar
accreditation, supervising the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy,
determining the process for new gTLDs).
3. ccTLD administrative functions (such as updating the IANA database
entries concerning ccTLD Managers, or requests for delegation and re-
delegation).
4. Policy coordination for infrastructure security ****EXCLUSIVELY
RELATED TO THE DNS AND DNS MANAGEMENT. ICANN DOES NOT
COORDINTAE GENERAL NETWORK OR INFRASTRUCTURE
SECURITY.******
5. Policy-related functions including:
5.1. ***COORDINATING** IP address and AS number allocation,
5.2 ccTLD global policy coordination,
5.3. Protocol numbering via the IANA registries,
5.4 gTLD registry-level policies.
Recommendation 1 - mission. The Names Council proposes the
following re-statement of ICANN's mission:
"ICANN's mission is to coordinate technical and policy functions of the
domain name system in order to promote a stable, secure and
commercially viable domain name system, promote competition in key
aspects of the DNS, and achieve broad representation of global Internet
communities, all for the benefit of the users of the global Internet."
The Names Council specified the following existing functions of
ICANN where the NC notes that improvements and enhancements in
delivery of services or improvements in relationships are needed:
- ccTLD administrative functions
- root server administration
- Registry and Registrar contract enforcement e.g. escrow, the UDRP and
WhoIs.
*****ICANN SHOULD, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE ITU, DRAFT A
DOCUMENT THAT CLEARLY DELINEATS WHAT AREAS ARE BEYOND
ICANN'S JURISDICTION.****
Recommendation 2 - structure. Create clearly delineated divisions within
and under ICANN responsible for the administration of operational and
policy functions. This would establish separate staff functions for policy
and operational functions but maintain a clear authority within ICANN
management for all such functions.
****IWHEREVER POSSIBLE, CANN SHOULD LEAVE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY IN THE HANDS OF NATIONAL
GOVERNMENTS, REGIONS, LOCALITIES AND THE FREE MARKET.
ICANN MUST RECOGNIZE THAT, BECAUSE ITS DECISIONS WILL ACT
TO CONSTRAIN CHOICES ON A GLOBAL LEVEL, THAT ONLY THE MOST
URGENT MATTERS AFFECTING THE GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY
REQUIRE AN ICANN POLICY.*******
Some of the Names Council noted that the greatest potential for mission
creep lay in the areas of additional security and additional consumer
protection. The Names Council recognised that the functions expected of
ICANN as viewed today may, be different in a changed world of tomorrow.
That future world may dictate that ICANN's functions are more, or are
fewer, than those today. Focus of the core functions of the moment will be
a key to success.
******WHILE ICANN SHOULD CONSIDER THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION AND CIVIL SOCIETY ASPECTS OF THE POLICIES IT
ENACTS, AND SHOULD BE PREPARED TO CORRECT UNANTICIPATED
CONSUMER HARMS OR RESTRICTIONS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES THAT
FLOW FROM ICANN POLICIES, ICANN SHOULD NOT TAKE ON ANY
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION. THIS
ROLE PROPERLY BELONGS WITH NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS.******
Recommendation 3 - functions. ICANN's functions should not be
extended at this time beyond what is outlined in the note "What ICANN
Does" .
****ICANN SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE ITU TO ESTABLISH FIRM
LIMITS ON ICANN'S FUNCTIONS AND JURISDICTIONS.*****
Funding ICANN
****WHILE FUNDING ICANN IS A CRITICAL FUNCTION PROPERLY
SHARED AMONG ALL STAKEHOLDERS, ICANN MUST RECOGNIZE
THAT NOT ALL STAKEHOLDERS ARE EQUALLY SITUATED. ICANN
MUST ENSURE THAT FUNDING MECHANISMS DO NOT BECOME
BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION, AND THAT ALL VOICES ARE TREATED
EQUALLY WITHIN ICANN REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY.******
Short-term
The NC believes that the debate over the longer term funding of ICANN
should not be distracted by any short term funding problem.
Recommendation 4 - short-term funding. The NC urges the existing
funders to reach at least interim agreements quickly to avoid any short fall
in ICANN's existing budget.
Longer term
Recommendation 5 - core funding. Funding could potentially come from
more than one source but the bulk of funds should ultimately derive from
the revenues of gTLD Registrants' fees and be administered via
Registrars and/or Registries.
Recommendation 6 - secondary sources. Secondary sources should
include the ccTLDs and RIRs, but should not include governments.
(Consideration should be given to the relevance of ccTLDs which are
marketed in non-geographic ways to recommendations 5 and 6).
Recommendation 7 - supplementary sources. Supplementary sources
could be found from sources such as secretariat service fees to the GAC.
Recommendation 8 - budgeting. Further to recommendation 2, ICANN
budgeting should reflect a delineated structure.
Advisory Bodies and Policy Development
Recommendation 9 - policy making. ICANN policy advisory bodies should
formulate policy recommendations based on a bottom-up, consensus
process of all stakeholders.
****THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT CONSUMER AND CIVIL SOCIETY
INTERESTS ARE NOT WELL REPRESENTED IN THE CURRENT
PROCESS. ICANN SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO REDUCE THIS
PERCEPTION BY ENSURING THAT INDIVIDUALS AND NON-
COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS HAVE A MEANINGFUL PLACE IN THE
ICANN STRUCTURE.*****
Recommendation 10 - impact. The policy recommendations from such
policy advisory bodies should be ordinarily binding on the ICANN Board
and ICANN entities, but with rejection possible subject to a 2/3 Board
majority.
Recommendation 11 - staff support. ICANN’s policy advisory bodies
should be made more effective by the provision of full-time staff to support
all aspects of policy making including a co-ordinating secretariat and staff
support to policy-making task forces and similar groups.
Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs. Create a new advisory body for the
ccTLDs. This would need means of collaborative decision making with
the gTLD advisory body on relevant areas of policy.
****THE INTERESTS OF CCTLD COMMUNITIES, AS WELL AS CCTLD
ADMINISTRATORS, SHOULD BE REPRESENTED WITHIN THE
ADVISORY BODY.*****
Recommendation 13 - gTLDs: Create a new advisory body for gTLDs,
which should cover essentially the policy role to date of the DNSO.
****NAME REGISTRANTS, CONSUMER GROUPS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
ADVOCATES SHOULD SERVE ON THIS ADVISORY BODY****
Board composition
The following recommendations are intended as discussion points
before our next call (April 24) and based on the agenda items of the April
18 call.
The chairs of the advisory bodies should be members of the Board.
The advisory bodies should elect in addition a fixed number of Board
members. The number of members need not necessarily be the same
for each advisory body.
The Board should be set at a size that makes it workable without the need
for a smaller executive committee. This means it should have fewer
members than at present.
Any nominating committee should only have the power to nominate one
third or fewer of the Board seats or any other ICANN entity.
****AT LEAST HALF THE BOARD SHOULD BE ELECTED BY THE USER
COMMUNITY****
At-large
*****THE AT LARGE REPRESENTS AN IMPORTANT TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTIABILITY MECHANISM. IT LEGITIMIZES THE BOARD IN
THE EYES OF THE BROADER INTERNET COMMUNITY AND HELPS
PRESERVE THE BOARD FROM CAPTURE BY SPECIAL INTERESTS.****
****
Transparency
Create an ombudsman to handle allegations of unfairness, exclusion
from participation and ICANN ineffectiveness.
***THE BOARD SHOULD IMPLEMENT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW
PANEL, AS REQUIRED BY THE MOU WITH THE US DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE*****
****EACH DECISIONMAKING LEVEL OF ICANN SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR
CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY. IN PARTICULAR, ICANN STAFF
SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN FORMAL POLICY DECISIONS, AS THIS
CREATES AN APPEARANCE OF
PARTIALITY.*******
-------------------------------------------------
This message was sent via http://webmail.his.com.
http://www.his.com/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|