[ncdnhc-discuss] Latest draft NC doc on reform

[Harold J. Feld]

I can provide copies in Word.

It was observed during the discussion on the call that this document is 
a high-level document that will be only one input into the process. 
While important, the NC should not obsess about exact wording.

In addition, each constituency can and should submitt its own position.

I understand that generating solid consensus on a position is difficult. 
But I would ask those active in the consticuency (particularly my 
coleagues on adcom) to develop, as quickly as possible, a mechanism for 
providing a NCC _consensus_ position.

Our consensus position need not be limited by the draft language. We can 
state policy positions about the draft rather than working within the 
draft text, so that ICANN Board and staff will have the benefit of the 
consensus of the consticuency.

Above all, we must move QUICKLY.

Harold Feld
___________________________________________
DRAFT version 7 Interim Names Council recommendations on ICANN Evolution 
May 2002
Highlighted items are open for comment latest 28 April.
Introduction
This document contains interim recommendations from the Names Council on 
issues of high-level principle as a contribution to the 2002 debate 
discussions on ICANN evolution. The Names Council will continue to add 
recommendations as the debate continues and may also add detail 
(especially on policy development) to some of its earlier 
recommendations as time allows. The recommendations are shared by all NC 
constituencies unless where indicated in the annotated footnotes.

These recommendations evolved during a series of telephone conferences 
and exchanges of e-mail beginning March 2002 and going forward. These 
conferences were held jointly with the chair and alternate chair of the 
General Assembly and included sessions with ICANN CEO, staff and 
advisors and the chairman of the ICANN evolution committee.

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 . There must be a clear process and that process 
should be managed by the ICANN Board.

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 . This 
would need means of collaborative decision making with the ccTLD 
advisory body on relevant areas of policy.



Board composition
These are recommendations proposed for e-mail adoption following e-mail 
input to version 6 and the April 24 call. Deadline midnight your time 
zone 28 April to comment.

Recommendation 14 - Board elections. The advisory bodies should elect or 
select a selection of Board members.

Recommendation 15 - Board size. The Board should be set at a size that 
balances two goals - large enough to be representative, small enough to 
be functional.


Transparency

Recommendation 16 - independent review. Create a committee for 
independent review to over see the work of a professional ombudsman. The 
committee could comprise a designee of the GAC, a designee of the IAB, 
past board members, and an ombudsman.


Next steps
As stated in the introduction, the Names Council will continue to add 
recommendations as the debate continues and may also add detail 
(especially on policy development) to some of its earlier 
recommendations as time allows.