DRAFT version 6
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: http://www.icann.org/general/toward-mission-statement-07mar02.htm 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.
5. Policy-related functions including:
5.1. 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.
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.
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.
Recommendation 3 -
functions. ICANN's functions should not be extended
at this time beyond what is outlined in the note "What ICANN Does" .
Funding ICANN
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.
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.
Recommendation 13 - gTLDs:
Create a new advisory body for gTLDs, which should cover essentially the
policy role to date of the DNSO.
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-large
-
?
Transparency
-
Create an ombudsman
to handle allegations of unfairness, exclusion from participation and ICANN
ineffectiveness.