My initial comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan

[Milton Mueller]

To prepare for discussion next week with ICANN management.

These are just my opinions, although I sometimes use the "NCUC
favors..." language in the hopes that we will agree. I also addressed
only those issues that interest me the most, others need to throw in
comments on the issues that interest them. Marc, since you will be at
the Amsterdam meeting I am particularly interested in your input. --MM

=========================
COMMENTS ON ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN

The Strategic Plan should include greater recognition of the importance
of the transition from USG supervision. The Strategic Plan needs to look
beyond the immediate issue of satisfying the US Department of Commerce
MoU and present a compelling vision of  a new governance model that is
willing to accept the need for a new form of external accountability and
which is confident enough  to continue evolving and improving.

As a private yet global organization, with regulatory and "taxing"
powers over the domain name supply industry and indirect powers  over
the users of domain names, some supervision and accountability
mechanisms will be required. NCUC strongly supports a  transition which
would internationalize this responsibility beyond the United States
Department of Commerce. At the same time, we  recognize the dangers of
overly intrusive and arbitrary forms of governmental (or
intergovernmental) intervention in the management  of Internet
identifiers.

Recently, the issue of ICANN's supervision and accountability has been
reframed by the emergence of the Working Group on  Internet Governance
(WGIG). Because the WSIS and WGIG processes are largely outside of the
direct control of ICANN and  the USG, we do not expect a detailed
discussion of those topics in the Strategic Plan. However, we would like
to see some  indication of openness on ICANN's part to new global
institutional arrangements designed to foster accountability and
supervision  arrangements that minimize the potential for abuse and
provide a safety valve for correcting procedural and substantive
problems.

In general, NCUC favors the direct participation of civil society
fostered by the ICANN model over the intergovernmental model as  the
primary form of accountability. At the same time, civil society groups
within ICANN believe that the current advisory status of  the At Large
Advisory Committee (ALAC), and the imbalance between commercial and
non-commercial constituency groups in  the Generic Names Supporting
Organization (GNSO), prevent ICANN from properly reflecting the
interests of the  non-commercial and individual users of the Internet,
unfairly advantaging specific interest groups. We do not believe that
the  "reforms" introduced two years ago resolved these problems.
Seemingly petty but consequential forms of bias, such as granting the
GNSO Business constituency two representatives on the Nominating
Committee when other constituencies only get to select one,  are
symptomatic of the kind of bias that often permeate ICANN's processes.
Rather than implying that reform is complete and  satisfactory to all
parties, the strategic plan should recognize that problems still exist
and need to be addressed.

Competition and choice should definitely be a priority for ICANN. On
new TLDs, we recommend replacing the term "predictable  strategy for
selecting new TLDs" with "predictable process for responding to demand
for new gTLDs." Seven years after  ICANN's creation, it should have more
than a "strategy" regarding new gTLDs, it should have a well-defined,
objective, and  transparent process for adding them. Those proposing new
TLDs should know how many are available each year and what they  must do
to qualify for one. They should also be assured of a fair, quick
response to their proposals, rather than long, indeterminate, and
untransparent private negotiations.