[council] NDNHC summary of comments in response to Draft 6

["Harold J. Feld" <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

I am still compiling the comments received into a draft, but to 
facilitate discussion (and in case I can't finish in time), I will 
summarize broad trends that have arisen from my consultations with 
NCDNHC and individual members who have contacted me.

1)  NCDHC continues to support a Board structure where at least half of 
the directors are elected by the internet user community.  There is no 
support for an ombudsman alternative.  There is some agreement with the 
idea that governments can act in the same role of providing 
accountability, but those supporting this believe that governments 
should assume a greater role in managing ICANN.

On a related point, there is growing support within NCHDHC for the ITU 
or ITU-T to assume greater responsibility.  This ranges from arguing 
that ITU should help ICANN draft the mission statement (as per the 
recent letter from the ITU to ICANN) to eliminating ICANN and or making 
it a subgroup of ITU and having ITU assume these functions.  

This is by no means a consensus position of NCDNHC, but it is an 
important trendline because it represents a fundamental shift in 
position of a number of members.  Those arguing these positions argue 
that: 1) ITU -- in intergovernmental groups generally -- are more 
responsive to NGO and civil society concerns than ICANN; 2) ITU is more 
international and not subject to US domination; 3) ITU has greater 
expertise.

2) There is concern in allocating to ICANN policy for ccTLDs, 
Addressing, and Protocols.  Several commentors observed that, at 
present, ICANN _coordinates_ policy for PSOs, RIRs, and ccTLDs, but does 
not _dictate_ policy or decide among competing policies.  I will attempt 
to introduce specific language addressing these concerns.

2a) Some commentors expressed concern that ICANN should not set gTLD 
policy beyond a minimum necessary to comply with UDRP.  In particular, 
concern was expressed that market forces, rather than top-down 
regulation, should dictate gTLD policy.  Countering this, is concern 
that registries may engage in anticompetitive practices as regard their 
registries and subsidiary registrars.  This is a particular concern 
vis-a-vis Verisign.  There is no consensus on these issues within NCDHC, 
but I present the views of individual commentors for consideration in 
this discussion.

3) ICANN's consumer protection role should be limited to problems that 
arise out of ICANN's management of the DNS. e.g., issues pertaining to 
name transfers between registrars.  ICANN should not become involved in 
general consumer protection.

4) There is great concern that ICANN not exercise policy in the area of 
security.  This should be limited to DNs and should be limited to 
coordination, not ultimate authority over policy.

5) There is support for creating a list of areas outside ICANN's 
perview.  To what does ICANN authority not extend?  Where can ICANN make 
no rules?

Harold Feld