[council] Conclusions to call no on ICANN Evolution
Following input from Thomas Roessler and Marilyn Cade, I am happy to adopt their suggested wording (last two paragraphs) as friendly amendments and propose the following as conclusions to our first call. In order to make progress I will assume the NC agrees to this unless I hear to the contrary before the start of our next call.
DRAFT version 2
Scope and mission of ICANN
In broad terms the 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
"ICANN is responsible for coordinating the Internet's naming, address allocation, and protocol parameter assignment systems. These systems enable globally unique and universally interoperable identifiers for the benefit of the Internet and its users.
ICANN's paramount concern is the stability of these services.
ICANN's role includes both operational and policymaking functions. "
The ICANN note specifies that ICANN's operations (in broad 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).
3. ccTLD administrative functions (such as requests for delegation and redelegation).
4. Policy coordination for infrastructure security.
5. Policymaking 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.
The Names Council specified the following existing functions of ICANN where the NC would like ICANN to do better in carrying them out:
- ccTLD administrative functions
- root server administration
- Registry and Registrar contract enforcement with respect to intellectual property and other existing conditions.
Recommendation 1: Create clearly delineated divisions within ICANN responsible for the administration of certain technical functions. This would establish separate staff functions for policy and operational functions.
The Names Council felt that the greatest danger of mission creep lay in the areas of security and consumer protection. The creation of infrastructure for at-large membership was also mentioned; however, it was also argued that this topic should not be discussed alongside with ICANN's functions.
Recommendation 2. ICANN's functions should not be extended beyond what is outlined in the note "What ICANN Does" .