[ga] proposed ICANN structure

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear all,
Danny has requested a GA proposition concerning the ICANN structure. IMHO 
an ICANN structure proposition calls first for an analysis of its social 
environment to understand where it fits and what is expected from it. Then 
to determine how it may best fulfill these expectations. Then the most 
adequate structure to best perform.

Once this has been defined, specific needs or obligations can be 
consistently addressed simply enough. Obviously this "wild" scheme below 
has the simplicity of a strict conformance with the initial RFCs, ccTLD 
best practices and with common sense as often expressed on this GA. But I 
think that common sense may be in many areas a Sept 11th aftermath. So who 
knows.

1. The ICANN is part of the Internet Governance

The Internet is the consensus of its participants, whatever their size, to 
interconnect their systems under the TCP/IP in using the IP and domain 
naming plans. Their management of the consensus of the Global Internet 
Community they form together is the Internet Governance.

This governance is assumed by the Internet participants on a voluntary 
basis. The governance participants may share into the governance either in 
a structured way through dedicated interest groups (constituencies, working 
groups, etc...) or on an individual manner. In that later case they are 
referred to as "@large Members".

This governance organizes itself to address them to address the needs it 
observes. It proceeds through ad-hoc specialized and complementary 
dedicated centers, such as those for network architecture, engineering 
cooperation, addressing plans coordination, security, netiquette, national 
or TLD management centers, user education, innovation catalysis, consumer 
representation, governments coordination, etc.

The different governance centers adopt the organization best suiting their 
needs where both Internet participants dedicated interest groups and @large 
members may share.

The stability and the security of an unlimited interconnect consensual 
system of such magnitude as the Internet require the smallest number 
possible of rules and of changes that everyone may understand, accept and 
rely upon to build their own applications. These rules are published by the 
different ad-hoc centers (RFC for the engineering, ICP for the addressing 
plans, etc...) after a process of consensual analysis and agreement uncovering.

2. The ICANN specialized area

The Internet needs a simple, powerful and stable addressing scheme. The 
ICANN wants to be the ad-hoc governance center to uncover and support the 
Internet Participants' consensus in that area.

Addressing involves three plans: IP addresses at interconnection level, 
names both for mnemonics and at machine level, protocol numbers at port 
access level. The responsibility undertaken by the ICANN (known as IANA 
functions) is to avoid conflicts in number and names through three "first 
come/first serve" registries subject  to registration prerequisites. These 
prerequisites are presented and described in the ICP documents.

3. Organization

The ICP documents result, through dedicated support organizations, from a 
consensual uncovering permanent effort both by all the stake holding 
organizations - them focusing on the netwide management aspects in their 
area of concern - and by the @large - them offering reviews of the global 
impact on the society and of the individual interest best service.

The ICANN is naturally organized into three basic Support Organizations 
(Protocol, IP and Name registries). These SO are the interfaces of the 
ICANN BoD and of the Staff with the Internet Participants, both @large and 
Constituencies.

Constituencies may freely participate to SOs on the basis of their 
concerns. @large freely participate to the GA of the SOs. Each SO has a 
Council where constituencies and @large are equally represented. This 
Council coordinates the work of the SO. The SO Councils share with the 
global @large membership to elect the BoD Members in such a way that - a 
part from the ICANN President a non elected Director -  the Directors 
equally come from Constituencies and from @large.

The ICANN shares into the specification and the maintenance of mail based 
governance management system. It is used by every working group and even at 
face to face meeting to permit remote people to be associated to the 
debate.  As a reference, archiving, polling tool it makes secret 
preparatory meetings less effective and progressively leads to transparency.

4. ICANN financing

ICANN assumes responsibility for the Internet Participant governance 
contribution collection. It carries the responsibility to organize and to 
channel it to governance Members. This contribution is included in the IP 
address allocation fee. This both the only long range stable and clearly 
defined charge by the ICANN, and a fairly distributed charge as 
sophisticated users (portable, private systems) will use large number of 
addresses while developing countries obtain reasonable access while sharing 
them.

Each governance center, SOs and constituency will benefit from this 
governance budget through a consensual process where every concerned party 
is represented.

5. ICANN Virtual Campus

The ICANN is well located to be one of the governance focal points where 
constituencies, associations, working groups may meet and cross fertilize. 
This is mainly carried through the organization of quarterly and yearly 
gatherings, possibly an Internet Show and of secretariat services.

This role is only an assistance offered to the Global Internet Community. 
It is not a way to obtain any form of dominance. In a governance mechanism 
leadership is provided through catalysis.

This ICANN Campus may offer "virtual housing" to governance bodies such as:

- SSRAC : the USG root server system founded by the TLDs using it
- Constituencies
- IANA database and ccTLD Alliance
- International @large Network Association (IALNA) : made of all the @large 
Members
- GAC
- a Consummation Consultative Committee
- the Internet Security and Stability Protection Advisory Committee
- the TLDA
- etc...

The ICANN Campus charter permits a certain cohesion between these groups 
which helps when organizing common meetings, presentation, etc... This 
culture is based upon a common use of the same mail management based system 
and on the agreement that every common proposition will include a paragraph 
explaining how it will reduce the lingual, financial and digital divide.

6. ICANN Root Service

The ICANN assumes the IANA function of registering and updating the master 
file of the Name Registries (root) and to organize its distribution to the 
value added service providers (SSRAC, NICs, TLDs, ISP, ASP, TLDs, 
Registrars, Anti-Virus services, Registrants associations, etc...).

7. Naming confusion resolution procedures

Confusion may arise in the use of the ICANN registries from:
-  loss of ICANN or TLD registry information
-  inadequate choice of a name for a TLD or for a user domain.

The first confusion will be addressed by the delivery of a smart card 
providing both a permanent title to a name of domain and a way of access to 
its re-registration in case of failure or of transfer or to the change of 
its DNS parameters.

The second type of confusion concerns the adequacy of the user chosen 
domain name with the site as perceived by the users. This confusion is 
cleared through the call to a randomly selected large user panel of the 
same culture as the concerned domain name character set. The ICANN and the 
Registries are in no way concerned by the right to use a TM by a domain 
owner. Their duty is to the Internet Participants and it is to make sure 
that they are not confused and do not reach a site they did not cant to 
access. The common national laws on TM apply on the illegal use of TM, the 
ICANN and the TLD will only apply the international treaties on TM justice 
decision enforcement as they may be agreed by Governments.

TLD cybersquatting results from the ICANN failure to fulfill its IANA TLD 
registration function as per the RFC 920. The correct approach described 
above will correct that situation and stop TLD cybersquatting.

DN cybersquatting results from the ICANN acceptation of domain name 
transfers as if a name was not the designation of a given domain. The free 
competition between TLDs will probably lead new TLDs to propose a correct 
approach of the Internet user domain naming: domain life long free domain 
name allocation, no transfer allowed without the real transfer of the 
domain, charge on the basis of the information service provided to the 
accessing users. This should get progressively rid of cybersquatting and of 
the UDRP legal interference.

7. ICANN Membership

In choosing to assume naming management responsibility the ICANN has signed 
an agreement with the USG for the transfer of the IANA functions. This 
agreement obliged the ICANN to respect some obligations concerning its 
nationality and its monopoly role. The transfer of the USG root to the 
ICANN should be completed rapidly as an Internet Security and Stability 
Protection issue. Both to permit the USA to better control what is 
happening on their on soil as may do all the other countries. And to remove 
the "USA" tag on the Internet which may become detrimental to the Internet 
and therefore to the US interests themselves.

An international association status like the IATA or the ICC is the best 
solution for the ICANN. To protect its independence while fully assuming 
its international status, the ICANN should be reincorporated as the 
association of the national NICs assuming the national animation of the 
Internet Participants, the national ccTLD management and the IP addressing 
allocation and contribution recovery. The ICANN GA formed by the NIC would 
control the ICANN budget and approve the ICANN bylaws modifications.

This association will include Constituencies and @large as voting colleges 
to the BoD. The BoD election mechanism will be extremely simple and cheap 
since @large are the Members of the various mutually accepted governance 
centers: ISOC, IETF, IALNA, ICANNWatch, IDNHC, local NIC etc... etc... 
These Members clearly identified, active participants all the year long. 
They are  occasionaly poled on the various goverance matters, every two 
years elect the BoD Directors.

I made a dream...

Jefsey

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html