[ncdnhc-discuss] specific test changes for Latest NC draft

[James Love]

> 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.
>

    Comment.   Our own read is that the mission statement referenced above
is too open ended.  I think what the NC needs to respond to is the proposal
by the ITU to work with ICANN to develop a boundary statement.  We should
have an opinion on this.   I think we should take the ITU up on this.

> 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."

   There should be text inserted....

"ICANN should develop a non-exhaustive list of things that ICANN does not
do."  (since the current "we do" statment is so broad).

"Whereever possible, ICANN should avoid centralization of policy making,
deferring to regional or national policy makers on issues that do not
require centralized and uniform policies.  ICANN need not control every
policy decision on the DNS system, particularly those concerning
authorization of new TLDs, where ICANN can simply defer to national or
regional decision makers, and coordinate issues that truly require global
coordination, such as uniqueness of TLD strings.

         [snip]

> 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.

      Add, "ICANN should consult with consumer organizations and domain name
user groups to determine the types of consumer protection issues related to
domain name registrations that merit ICANN attention."

> Recommendation 3 - functions. ICANN's functions should not be extended
> at this time beyond what is outlined in the note "What ICANN Does" .

     Should say, ICANN shall consult with ITU to develop a statement of
ICANN policy making boundaries.


>
> 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.

   Add  "ICANN should not use fees to limit the voice of consumer and civil
society interests.  Domain name holders already pay fees to use domain
names, and should not pay twice to have a voice in ICANN governance."


> 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.

    Add:  "Consumer and user interests are under represented in current
ICANN structure.   ICANN's DNSO lacks the regional input and decision making
that currently is used in the numbering area. "

> Transparency
> - Create an ombudsman to handle allegations of unfairness, exclusion
> from participation and ICANN ineffectiveness.

  Add: "ICANN should implement the requirement for an independent review
panel."
  Add:  "The DNSO and each constituent organization should address problems
relating to the appearance of conflicts of interest."
  Add:  "ICANN staff members or consultants should not vote in DNSO
constituencies."