[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review ++

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi everybody,

this is a good discussion but goes far beyond the NomCom review. It affects ICANNs structure as a whole. The existing structures were formed in the 00s years 
a. after it became clear that "global elections", to send five/nine voting members to the ICANN Board, representing the Internet users "At Large", won´t work and 
b. before the launch of the new gTLD program, which did broadening the membership in the constituencies of the g-space. 
With nearly four billion Internet users there is no way back to "elections". And with 1000+ new gTLDs the balance in a GNSO, designed when we had not more than 20+ gTLDs, gets rocked. 

This is one reason why I proposed already in Buenos Aires (2014) to think about a greater restructuring of ICANN in a mid-term-period (I called it ICANN 2020 or better ICANN 2025 and "the Grand Re-Design") as a "Workstream 3" project. We discussed this informally in the Structural Improvement Committee of the Board in 2015. We agreed that we will have an issue here in the future, but it is too early to have an immediate action. 

In Marrakesh (March 2016) we had an informal BOF session where we agreed that 
a. we have to think about it in a more holistic asnd strategic way and 
b. that first things have to come first, that is i. finish workstream 1 and complete the IANA transition and introduce the new accountability mechanism (which is done), ii. continue to work on WS 2 with the aim to finish this in 2017/2018 (as sooner as better) and iii. start before 2020 (probably on the basis of the ATRT III report) a cross constituency working group with the mandate to propose an adjusted structure - a "Grand Re-Design" - based on the great achievements we have with the reformed accountability mechanisms and the empowered community, to make ICANN fit fo the 2020s. 

One proposal (as a first idea) would be to have a layered structure (four layers) based on constituency and stakeholder networks (four stakeholders):
a. Representative Board as a "coordination and communication body"
b. Contracted parties as SOs with specific manadte in their field of competence/contracts
c. Stakeholder groups as ACs with a specific mandate to bring the perspective of their constituencioes both to the SOs and the Board in PD and decision making. 
d. CCWGs as PDP bodies.

But again this is just one idea for the kick start of a longer journey into the next "unknown territory". 
 
Against this background, the discussion on a NomCom review could be a good door opener for the "Grand Re-Design". 

Wolfgang

It would be great to know the rationale behind that division. As it is, commercial vs non-commercial division sounds more relevant to me.

MM: Raoul, I'd be happy to explain.

The distinction between contracted and non-contracted parties is fundamental to ICANN's mode of governance. ICANN governs by writing private contracts. End users don't have contracts with ICANN; only registrar and registries do.  Parties that have contracts with ICANN are the regulated entities, the parties who directly bear the costs and burdens of ICANN's rules, and who receive the "rewards" (TLDs, accreditation). If ICANN wants to regulate what internet users do, it can only do so by writing contracts that control what registries and registrars do.

Non-contracted parties, on the other hand, cannot be directly regulated by ICANN. Their interests as domain name registrants can be and often are strongly affected by what ICANN does, but those effects can only come through the intermediation of contracted parties. In many respects, both commercial and noncommercial stakeholders are users/consumers rather than suppliers of domain name services, and thus might be said to have more in common with each other than with contracted parties.

But that is not how it usually works out, because commercial users tend to prioritize trademark protection and various forms of law enforcement, whereas noncommercial users tend to prioritize individual rights to freedom of expression and privacy. So the CSG tends to support a heavy-handed, highly regulatory ICANN whereas NCSG tends to support a freer and more open DNS.


It should be noted that if there were more noncommercial registries and
registrars, they would still be within the RySG and RrSG not the NCSG,
though they then could assert their presence in those areas and might
indeed end up being NCSG allies.  In fact we often are in common cause
with them and in fact some of the funding NCUC gets is from a
noncommerical Registry.

Fascinating. So in addition to have almost no funding, it's also compromised.