[ncdnhc-discuss] [Comments] Latest NC draft

[YJ Park]

Thank you Harold for reminding us of this.

This is my comments.

First, I cannot support the following statement which is written in
te draft because I don't think ICANN's mission was factually described
by the ICANN staff. It didn't even match the various proposals to divide 
the current functions of ICANN by NCDNHC members through this list.
 
"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:"

Secondly, out of Recommendation 1 - mission, the highlighted
"all for the benefit of the users of the global Internet" part should be
carefully incorporated into this context only if ICANN is ready to accept 
"users of the global Internet" as equal owners, which unfortunately ICANN
is not. Internet Users should not be exploited as those who can be imposed 
by the ICANN as the subjects.

Thirdly, ccTLD administrative functions are expected to be handled
by the very Internet community not by ICANN whom we don't know
who they are. 

Fourthly, I do still have reservation about ICANN's policy-making role
recommended below without its clear position whether it is to be a facilitator 
or regulator and how such policy should be formulated through patience-
needed open bottom-up process or effiecient consensus process among 
the selected folks as proposed by Lynn.  

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" [snip]

Fifthly, I do support Funding proposals.
Recommendation 5 - core funding.  
Recommendation 6 - secondary sources.(Voluntary basis)
Recommendation 7 - supplementary sources. 

Sixthly, Advisory Bodies and Policy Development
Recommendation 9 - policy making.  
Recommendation 10 - impact.  
Recommendation 11 - staff support.  

Seventhly, global At-large members representatives are to be considered
as half of ICANN Board to secure "all for the benefit of the users of the 
global Internet". 

Lastly, I have lost here the details of the ICANN Board composure
and functions of Advisory Body which sounds familiar from Lynn's
reformation proposal such as Policy Body. 
Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs' advisory body. 
Recommendation 13 - gTLDs' advisory body:  
Board composition

In summary, I responded to this draft based on following model. 

ICANN is to technically administer Name space coordinating with RIRs, 
Protocol Standard Bodies and ccTLDs' Association which don't have to be 
under ICANN's umbrella through contractual relations. 

Checks and Balance I: Board vs DNSO
The half of ICANN Board members(regardless of the numbers) are to be 
from global Internet users who are supposed to listen to the advice or 
recommendations from the experts who can be compared to the current
DNSO. They will have checks and balances as the Congress and the House
do. Therefore, the ICANN can be larger version of the current DNSO
without ccTLD. 

Checks and Balance II: ccTLD Association vs GAC
ccTLDs can have indeed Advisory status together with GAC in the ICANN.
Therefore, another checks and balances bettwen ccTLD Association and
the GAC wrt ccTLD issues.

Therefore, as we have seen triangular checks and balance in some poltitical 
systems, herein Internet coordination, we may consider four-facted checks 
and balance. The further checks and balance between

Checks and Balance III: Board vs ccTLD
Checks and Balance IV: ccTLD vs DNSO(which is already happening)
Checks and Balance V: GAC vs Board(slightly in its early stage)
Checks and Balance VI: GAC vs DNSO(which is already happening)

can be refined later after they start to interact each other regularly.

Thank you,

YJ
Internet Governance WG Chair, APNG

Note: This is not the position of the WG but position of an individual.