Comment draft on strategic plan

[Milton Mueller]

Based on the comments we have received, here is a consolidated draft.
Please look it over and give your approval or suggestions for change.

I incorporated Erick's, Hakikur's and Harold's comments into the
discussion of the fund for dev. countries, added some related stuff
about the fund for "Internet security," and added language about
geographic and linguistic diversity of TLD additions in response to Eung
Hwi's comments.

--MM

=================


NONCOMMERCIAL USER CONSTITUENCY COMMENTS ON ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN,

1. Accountability and the Dept of Commerce MoU.

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:
        * more democratic
        * willing to accept new forms of external accountability
        * 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.

2. Special Funds

Regarding the "Restricted Fund for Developing Country Internet
Communities," NCUC supports  the concept but would prefer to see it
re-labelled a "Restricted Fund for Technical Forums  in Developing
Countries." Encouraging and facilitating knowledge-sharing on technical
matters related to DNS and IP protocols falls within ICANN's general
purview and fosters  coordination rather than top-down management.

In this context, the constituency stresses that it is neither ICANN's
role to create  communities where none exist, nor to seek to "guide"
communities on a particular path.   The genius of the Internet has been
its ability to allow self-organizing communities to  engage involuntary
cooperation.  This ensures a continuing wellspring of new ideas and
innovations.  If ICANN were to go beyond its role as a facilitator and
coordinator by  attempting to "jump  start" a local community or
"correct" a local communities "mistakes,"  such actions -- however well
intentioned -- would be antithetical to the traditions of the
Internet community and to ICANN's guiding principles.

We therefore encourage ICANN to reaffirm the bottom-up nature of its
relationship to local  Internet communities, to define clear and
transparent procedures for organizations to  apply for these funds, and
to avoid making grants at the discretion of central staff.  ICANN should
have objective, neutral and participatory mechanisms to determine who
gets  these funds. Any evaluation committee should include
representatives from each of the  Supporting Organizations.

Similar questions and problems arise with respect to the discussion of
a Special  Restricted Fund for Internet Security. In this case the
purpose of the Fund is even less  well defined than the other one, and
we would withold any support for this concept. Parts  of the Strategic
Plan indicate that its purpose is to enable people from developing
countries to participate in technical forums related to security - a
function that is  already covered by the other proposed fund. Other
parts of the description indicate that  the purpose is to support
research and development activities or the standardization  activities
of the IETF. This is not an appropriate function for ICANN, and the
combination  of ICANN's regulatory powers with the voluntary
standardization activities of IETF and  other technical forums is
undesirable and dangerous.

3. Competition and Choice

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. Moreover, ICANN
should emphasize that applicants from all over the world, reflecting all
 linguistic groups and cultures, should have a fair and equal
opportunity to apply for and  win resources from ICANN.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.



Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org