ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< 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.† ICANNís 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 >>>