[ga] Answers to the GA Question's from Paul Kane

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>]

1.What are your views on the creation of an Individuals’ Constituency
in the DNSO?

As a Board member of a consensus based organization, I would like to see much more “bottom up approach” development to the criteria for the forming of any new organization of the ICANN. While there is merit in the question of how best to represent individual names holders, and a constituency of the DNSO may be a good approach, I don't like the idea  of a Director tabling a motion for adoption (top down) without the DNSO being able to discuss and adopt a consensus position as to the formulation, membership, participation of any new Constituency.  Any such motion should be developed according to the bottom up process, presented to the DNSO for consultation by the other constituencies.
The DNSO and ICANN itself are young organizations, but still, we must look to the DNSO to further strengthen it's role and structures to fulfil it's function.  The DNSO needs to enhance policy recommendations to the Board based on a thought through processes. Then, the DNSO can hold the staff and the Board accountable for accepting the recommendation in light of the detailed and thoughtful recommendations which are  presented to them.

The role of individuals and individual domain name holders, to the extent they are different, needs addressing.  One method would appear to be for those interested to develop the required materials, etc. for a proposal to the Names Council for a new constituency.   Another might be to look to the recommendations of the At Large Study Committee to see if individuals would be better satisfied in the At Large Membership, if there was a reasonable approach to support their ongoing participation in some way.  Both options seem to have some merit.  It is too early for me to comment on either as a preferred option, since it is clear that input from those interested and affected is needed.  Of course, while some may disagree, the addition of a new constituency will need the support and agreement of other constituencies.

2.  What are the strong and weak points of the DNSO structure as it is and how would you set about improving it?

This is obviously an important question to me because I am an elected Names Council representative from the Registrar Constituency.  The present processes of ICANN are all very time consuming. In it's early days, it is probably not possible to avoid the nature of having to both build processes, field test them, refine them, AND make decisions at the same time.  I believe that the Names Council is maturing in it's ability to make informed decisions; and I welcome that. However, at present, the Names Council is very dependent on the input of the Names Council reps themselves because the Constituencies are not yet mature in how they develop and present issues or policy input to the Names Council.

One immediate improvement to the functioning of the Names Council would be to have dedicated staff, just as associations do for their committees. The present approach relies too much on the voluntary efforts of individuals to carry out administrative/support functions. This dedicated staff person would work for the Names Council itself.  Such a function could be hired by either ICANN and assigned to the Names Council, and perhaps to start, a part time approach could be taken. Since the functions are ‘administrative’ in nature, and not policy orientated, a neutral approach is needed. The additional neutral support would facilitate the members of the Names Council through offloading them of the scheduling, initial drafting, etc.
ICANN is unusual body, its "business" is building consensus and providing a stable, representative and reliable environment for the management of a very small, but critical, part of the internet.

Many of the members of the DNSO bring to ICANN an unsurpassed wealth of knowledge, experience and wisdom, all pro-bono and every active member wants ICANN to succeed so that the dynamic flexibility of industry self regulation can empower the rapid development and opportunities the internet brings.  The DNSO is a great resource and ICANN is (very) lucky so many people remain willing to continue to support this initiative.  Like any successful organisation it needs to focus it's energies to achieve the desired goal, the DNSO is willing to work, but needs the opportunity to see the "vision" and direction of ICANN.

The DNSO still lacks effective relationships with it's sister SOs and a plan is needed to begin to address that. At present, there isn't even an effective consultation process on policy issues where consultation is clearly needed. I recommend that two to three members of the Names Council be identified to establish liaison relationships to the other SO and to serve as the bridge for ongoing communication, when consultation is needed.  Clearly, the other SOs have their own agendas and priorities, and this is not to overwhelm anyone with new communications, merely to create and formalize a method of communicating quickly and efficiently when needed on issues which are largely driven by technical aspects. Examples include the Multi-lingual names issues, changes in WHOIS, input from the other SOs on the views of the Names Council on other issues as they arise.

It would be helpful if one time each year, the SOs met in the same space, or if representatives of the SOs met in the same space and engaged in a forward looking exercise, with the Staff of ICANN in attendance. Such a meeting could be held in conjunction with the annual meeting, OR, if one of the ICANN meetings is held in conjunction with I-NET (as has happened each of past two years), then the meeting could be held then, if the greatest number of the other SO reps might be attending that external meeting.  A small, and narrow agenda should be crafted so that the meeting is productive for all SOs.

Finally, there could be some benefit in using an approach used in universities, non profit organizations/boards, and commercial entities, - the management retreat.  This is where the Names Council representatives undertake to have dedicated time, with the staff of ICANN, where they work together to establish better and agreed processes to operate their meetings, develop agendas, establish priorities. Such a meeting will take a number of hours of dedicated time but would be a useful exercise in improving the ability of the Names Council to achieve it's work – possibly being held immediately after an ICANN meeting where Names Council members are already present. The meeting would not be about decisions about issues or policy, but about process.  It may be appropriate to consider the dedicated period as an opportunity to develop an improved work schedule such that more consultation can be undertaken and that the Names Council can become a more effective policy forum for the Constituencies and the GA.

3.  What is your view on ICANN At Large participation -- do you support an election of the full number of At Large directors?

This is of course another highly controversial area.  With the work of the At Large Study Committee still underway, and the stage of wide consultation they are engaged in, it would be inappropriate to pre-judge their recommendations. I am more concerned that there is still time for the Constituencies and the GA, as well as the other SO's to provide their input to the committee, so that their suggestions are founded in broad input from the broadest set of stakeholders.   The At Large Study Committee is formulating draft proposals. It is imperative that the Constituencies and the Names Council, as well as the GA should expect to provide their input on these preliminary recommendations by the Montevideo meeting.

I do support elections for board members, but at this point, I do not have a position on the “right” number of board members from any new supporting organisation or from the At Large Membership.  I do have some thoughts about the importance of At Large members needing to understand the mission and core activities of ICANN, and some concern about how to ensure that there is sustainable participation to support the elected board members, regardless of the number.

Some may believe that a Board of 19 is too large for the efficient operation of a Board of Management; ICANN is not the typical business board, of course, and the number of board members needed to ensure broad representation will be greater than that number needed for efficient decision making.

It is my plan to listen, along with the At Large Study Committee; read their draft proposals; listen to anyone who wants to talk to me about their views, and reserve judgement about my own views until I have more information about proposed options.  I would expect to be developing more questions on this as I see more of their proposals and listen to what the community, including the Constituencies, and the Names Council have to say on this critical topic.

I am sure that there are those who will be disappointed that I am not staking out a position on this.  I think the appropriate role of a new board member in particular is to try to listen more, seek consultation with the stakeholders, including the constituencies, and reflect on the presented information, before formulating positions.

4.  To what extent would you seek to ensure that the "open," "bottom-up" mode of operation of ICANN, in which the participation of the General Assembly in forming recommendations and suggestions to the Board of Directors is a part,
and which mode is set out in the Articles that govern ICANN and in the agreement with the USG, would be honored and implemented?

As ICANN and the DNSO matures, the channels of communication improve and the Names Council recruits a full time secretariat, I envisage the role of the GA within the DNSO will become increasingly valuable. I support the bottom up process and look forward to seeing improved processes currently being developed by both the GA and the DNSO for enhancing communication and consensus development.

5.   What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the ccTLD Constituency to withdraw from the DNSO?

I have seen that some are very concerned that no efforts were made to keep the ccTLDs in the Names Council. That is not the case, but there seems to me to be clear indications of broader needs of the ccTLDs which the DNSO cannot meet.  This is different than “will not meet”.  I look forward to reviewing the details of their proposal to form a ccSO and  learning what other Constituencies within the DNSO feel about the issue so an informed decision can be made.

One of my companies provides technical support services to a number of ccTLDs so I have first hand knowledge of the dynamics of ccTLDs. The ccTLD community holds of wealth of different business models, legal structures, cultures and languages.  With 244 different ccTLDs - and their associated Governments - the ccTLDs are an extremely diverse body.

• Do I welcome the possible departure of the ccTLD Community from the DNSO ?- No, and I hope members of the ccTLD community will continue to be willing to share some of their wealth of experiences with the DNSO.
• Does the DNSO serve the needs of the ccTLD Community? - No.  The first responsibility of the ccTLD manager is to provide service to the local internet community, many (indeed most) ccTLD have local Policy Advisory Boards, all ccTLD registries have to adhere to the laws of the country in which they are based and the vagaries of national law can be considerable, and some of the ICANN requirements placed upon the gTLD arena would violate local law in some jurisdictions, so diversity of operation is a necessity.
• Is it important that the ccTLDs remain part of ICANN ? - YES, very important.  If their proposed ccSO is acceptable to the community, the ccTLD voice will become a channel of communicaiton for their local internet communities and strengthening their ability to make contributions to ICANN.

The ccTLDs bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to ICANN. An increasing
percentage of the world's domain registrations are in ccTLDs and in the
gTLD arena it is important that the ccTLD advises ICANN of  the concerns,
and requirements applicable for their local internet community to participate
and make use of new gTLDs and the global internet.

As one of  many channels of communication to ICANN, the ccTLDs have an important role to play.   It is important to remember that not all work of ICANN is done in the DNSO. I would hope that this approach for the ccTLDs strengthens their input, participation and contributions to the policy process. One area which I am committed to and will seek to ensure to whatever meaningful extent I can, is to work to continue to bridge work, collaboration, and communications  between the DNSO and the other SOs, in this case, including the ccTLD SO if it is created.

6.   Board Resolution 01.28 asked for proposals that may result in changes in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.  What proposals would you put forth?

Again as Board member it would be inappropriate to speculate or to try to influence the outcome of the DNSO process. I want to listen and see sound argument for specific changes to be adopted.  Historically however I was a member of the DNSO Names Council Review Task Force and its report, which is a consensus document, I support.

7.   What is your position on current registrar transfer policies?

I am a representative of the Registrar's Constituency on the Names Council and I am active in trying to ensure the procedure for facilitating domain transfer, does not inhibit or frustrate the functioning of the transfer process.  Historically, the procedure empowered registrant to be free to "shop" for the best service/value/customer care and transfer the domain without barriers, and I am all for customer choice, but what is important is bad faith transfers (unauthorised by the registrant) are not allowed to happen.

As a representative, I am currently mediating a resolution of the matter and will support the consensus opinion of the Constituency and because of the facilitator role I have undertaken, it is inappropriate to comment more at this time.  The Registrars Constituency is working on a set of specific transfer procedures and it will be made available to the DNSO for
it's input when completed, which is (estimated) to be by Montevideo.

8.   What changes would you propose with respect to the UDRP?

As a Board Member one makes decisions based on material submitted, the quality of the arguments and the information supplied. The UDRP is an existing consensus policy of ICANN.  Like other policies, it is presently undergoing examination.
Since this work is underway, it would be inappropriate for me to comment, because I do not have the detailed information from which to propose a change in policy. I would say that this is a “data gathering” stage and I look forward to a report from the Names Council working group who are trying to gather a comprehensive picture.

Overall, however, I believe that having a dispute resolution procedure that is cheap, efficient and recognizes multiple interests is vital for the long term stability of the internet.  After all, when these disputes arise, as they do, it is always possible to go directly to a court, and that represents a delay and cost to both parties that is often onerous.  If there are problems with the present UDRP approach, these will be identified, and then a process to think through any modifications, or additions, can be undertaken.   I do not have a pre-conceived agenda, simply I want ICANN to work as a consensus based organization, and I will look forward to receiving the DNSO Names Council report into the UDRP with it's policy recommendations.

9.   Do you support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent constituencies?

This is a tough question.  The DNSO needs a Secretariat, and due to the significant work load and technical resources, a professional support is required.  How it is funded is a very important question. Having asked ICANN  for funding - and being turned down, the next option is to ask for contributions from the users of its services, the Constituencies. If there is not a "penalty" for non contribution then few Constituencies would pay and the Secretariat would cease to exist.
However the ability to pay varies by Constituency and it's membership and that should be considered when apportioning the budget payable by each Constituency. So in answer to your question, if a significant amount of time has been allowed for the payment, and an appeals process exists for unusual circumstances, I reluctantly have to say yes, I support suspending the voting rights of financially delinquent constituencies, but I would prefer ICANN to fund the basic services of the Secretariat.   That will not relieve the need for some financial contribution of the constituencies, for their own operation, but the funding of the Names Council could be relieved from the constituencies.  This support would need to extend to other SO's if they sought such funding.

10.   Small Business Owners account for perhaps 70% of all domain registrations yet this set of stakeholders does not appear to be well-represented in the ICANN process; how would you address this issue?
 

I am always weary of broad brush statistics but I am particularly sympathetic to small businesses.  I am on the Board of a number of small businesses and whilst there is not a small business constituency, the small role I see for ICANN, is being adequately addressed.  As a small business owner, I want to ensure my x509 certification authority is able to authoritatively identify my company as the holder of "x" domain and issue an E-commerce SSL certificate, I want to ensure the ability to move service provider without barriers, I want to ensure that at the technical level my customers wherever they are in the world are always able to reach my web, ftp, and email servers, with no DNS spoofing, IP mapping or unauthorized mirroring.

Is there sufficient small business participation in the ICANN process? - most definitely NO, and more would be welcomed, but it could be most small business are busy making their businesses profitable and are unable to commit to spending resources to participate in the ICANN process, which at first glance is providing all they require from the internet. As a small business man with a business focus on the Internet, I am uniquely able to commit the time and resources to support ICANN.

For most small to medium sized businesses, they seek to delegate decision making to associations who typically represent their interests in such matters.  For example one of my companies is a member of the Internet Service Providers Association and whilst we do not attend every ISPA meeting, we do receive the news letters and are able to give input to the Association on matters of interest/importance. Certainly, some of the associations who are members of the business constituency have hundreds to thousands of small businesses as members.  More can be done to package information in ways which clearly explain why ICANN’s technical management is important and what they should do to communicate their views.

11.   The At-Large Study Committee was given a budget of $450,000 in order to accomplish outreach and generate recommendations; the DNSO is similarly an internal working committee of ICANN that engages in outreach and generates
recommendations, but it has never been given any financial support by ICANN.
Do you believe that the DNSO should continue to be self-funding?

I would like to see an element of DNSO self-funding to ensure bipartisanship, but I think ICANN should fund (directly or indirectly) the basic services of the DNSO.

12.   How would you evaluate the current TLD rollout?

From the beginning of introducing new gTLDs, it was intended to evaluate the process.  There is a study group looking into the details and I look forward to their report.

13.   What comments would you make regarding ICP-3?

Some are challenging this report as being “new policy” rather than stating what has been operating policy of ICANN.  If this is new policy, then a consultation with the three SOs is needed. If it is merely documenting operational policy, then it might still be useful to seek endorsement from the SOs.  As a statement of existing operating policy, I note that a draft was posted by the President of ICANN, was discussed by the Board in Stockholm and that he took comments before finalizing the document.

14.  It is now going on nine months since the new TLDs were selected and yet several registry contracts still remain to be signed; in view of the public's growing demand for new TLDs, how would you address this issue?

Knowing how hard and painstakingly conscientiously the ICANN staff are working on this issue I would say this is unfortunately "ramp-up" process.  I would sincerely hope the process will become quicker as the foundation agreements and precedents are now available to both the Staff and Registry operator. One thing Registries could do to expedite the Agreement process, is to have ready the finances, documentation and systems they said they were going to have available at the time their application was accepted. On one instance I believe the hold-up was because a Registry Operator had not instructed a firm of lawyers to fulfil the claims they made, another is the funding is not in place, another is the inability of the Registry operator to
produce a policy document for the running of the TLD in accordance with their application.  These agreements are unique in some respects, and we should be more concerned about getting them “right” than getting them “fast”.

15.  As new TLDs are launched, the prospect of collisions in namespace grows; how do you propose to solve this problem?

As a business man, I always want to encourage enterprise and stimulate a diverse range of applications and services that benefit the local and or global Internet community.
I support one authoritative root, that provides unique DNS resolution of name. The ICANN Authoritative Root is universal, so irrespective of geographical location and provided the client speaks "ASCII" the name will resolve.  Technical and policy work is underway to address multi-lingual names, and that must be a priority for the Internet community.

The selection process for new TLDs needs significant overhaul and unlike earlier where I have been unable to comment due to a consultation process being on-going, as the evaluation process has yet to start, I feel able to comment.

When I proposed the first Names Council resolution for increasing the number of TLDs to the Names Council http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00569.html in April 2000, I specifically wanted DNSO input both to the TLD names that were to be selected and to the processes/policies of operation of the Registry submitted by each applicant expressing interest.
The process should be "all inclusive" with successful applicants having demonstrable financial and technical stability to ensure the stable operation of the name space.  ICANN needs to ensure compliance with fundamental principles, based on the
polices developed by the DNSO community.

Satisfying customer demand in an efficient and robust manner is vital for the long terms stability of ICANN and the for realizing the potential growth of the Internet's diverse applications.  It is important that the “selection” of subsequent TLDs be made under the ICANN umbrella.  It is vital ICANN embrace innovation to ensure a universally accessible Internet community.

Claiming a pre-existing right to a TLD string, without following the processes of the organisation empowered to grant the requested resolving services, is futile.  What would be much better is to ensure the processes of selection (which inherently means some parties will not be selected) gives adequate chance for them to demonstrate financial and technical stability to ensure the stable operation of the name space to the global community.

16.  What is your position with respect to the future of .org?

Again, I feel it inappropriate to comment as there is a Names Council Committee considering the future of the .ORG space, and I look forward to it's report. However, one thought I do have is that there is much work to be done and little time to do it.  The sooner the Committee can start it's consultation process the better, as Verisign are contractually obligated to hand over .ORG at the end of next year and there is much to be done between now and then.

17.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?

I am Chairman of the WHOIS Committee and we are currently in a period of open consultation, so am unable to comment.  I am delighted to advise the number of comments now exceeds 2000 with participants from many countries as a result of the out-reach programme we undertook to provide the survey in English, French, Spanish, Russian and Japanese.  This is the largest consultation an ICANN survey has ever reached and I sincerely hope it will be the start of a new process of open consultation.

The WHOIS Committee needs time to evaluate the comments submitted and bearing in mind the number and detail of comments submitted it will be some considerable time before a report is produced.  Please note this survey is specifically designed to identify where WHOIS policies need to be reviewed, and then to suggest a second phase of actually undertaking policy review work.

If I am elected to the Board I will obviously resign from the Names Council but having worked in this area for the last 3 years, I can attest that there are no quick solutions to this multi-jurisdictional (political) issue.

18.  Is seven days sufficient time to review a registry contract?

Probably not.  However, it is not clear that the exact number of days chosen is a policy issue which needs DNSO agreement but one of process. What is needed is the agreement to have a sufficient period of time for stakeholder review and comments on those items which are policy.

Contracts cannot be line reviewed by either boards, or policy advisors. So, we need to strike a balance; Input on principles and polices, and the appropriate role of “advising” the staff and Board by the DNSO, without attempting to micromanage, or do their job for them.

19.  When would you begin the next round of TLD selections?

ICANN Staff have been instructed by the Board to form a gTLD Task Force to evaluate the introduction of new TLDs. I would hope that once that report is published and the community has had the opportunity to comment and to make subjective improvements to the previous process, a process to identify how to undertake the next round would start, immediately.