[ncdnhc-discuss] Latest NC draft

[Harold J. Feld]

Unfortunately, highlighting does not come through. I have this available 
in a word file, and will forward it to any Consticuency member 
requesting it.

Please provide comment ASAP so that the feelings of the consticuency can 
be forwarded to the NC and the ICANN staff.

Harold Feld

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.