ICANN Evolution and Reform Analysis and Comments June 2002 Bucharest, Romania

1
ICANN Evolution and ReformAnalysis and
CommentsJune 2002Bucharest, Romania

2
ICANN The Internet Compartion for Assigned
Names and Numbers President CEO Mike
Roberts November 1998 - 9 Member Virgin Birth
Board
3
ICANN The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers President CEO Stuart Lynn
Board seats
Standing committees
4
ERC PROPOSAL
Chair Selected by the Council
Providers
Users
GAC Appointer (non-voting)
5
ERC PROPOSAL
The Country Names Council
Unspecified number of regionally voting
Councillors
Unspecified number of regionally voting
Councillors
1/3 of Council by - appointments by Nominating
Committee (voting), - 1 GAC appointee
(non-voting)
6
Overview ICANN A Blueprint for Reform

• A Blueprint for Reform, posted 20 June 2002,
  summarizes the recommendations of the Evolution
  and Reform Committee (ERC) to the ICANN Board of
  Directors
• Process accelerated in February, 2002 with paper
  ICANN A Case for Reform, followed by the
  renaming of the Board committee to the Committee
  on Evolution and Reform, and several papers
• Staff Paper on What ICANN Does
• Working Paper on ICANN Mission and Core Values
• Working Paper on the ICANN Structure and the
  Nominating Committee Concept

7
Overview, contd

• A Blueprint for Reform
• Result of extensive consultation and outreach
  since February, 2002
• A Case for Reform was controversial in some
  aspects less so in others.
• Broad community agreement that changes were
  needed no agreement on many of the solutions
  proposed in the Case for Reform.

8
Goal of Blueprint is to ensure an ICANN that is

• Effective and responsive
• Streamlined processes that support participation
  but lessen burdens of unnecessary procedures
• Has more credibility
• Maintains consensus where possible, but has
  timely conclusions, able to make decisions
• Supports individual and other forms of
  participation
• Has adequate funding
• Maintains open and transparent processes

9
Mission and Core Values

• Discussions about Thick versus Thin didnt
  bring any answers
• Input from community confirms that ICANN does
  have some policy making responsibilities
• ICANNs role is to perform the technical
  coordination and to obtain the policy guidance
  for it.
• ICANNs role in policy should be limited to those
  areas reasonably related to ICANNs technical
  mission

10
Mission and Core Values

• Differences in view will continue regarding when
  ICANN is outside its mission parameters
• ERC didnt define boundaries but called for
  follow on work.
• Propose to reject view that ICANN should not be
  involved in policy at all.
• Notes importance of addressing questions with
  input of those affected, and the public interest.

11
ICANNs Mission is to coordinate stable
operation of the Internets unique identifier
systems.

• ICANN coordinates
• -allocation and assignment of three sets of
  unique identifiers for the Internet (Domain
  Names, Internet Protocol addresses and autonomous
  system (AS) numbers, Protocol port and parameter
  numbers)
• -operation and evolution of the DNSs root name
  server systems
• -policy-development as necessary to perform
  these functions.

12
ICANNs Structure, as presented, has some
significant changes

• Composition of Board changes
• Board doesnt have power to ratify selections of
  Nominating Committee
• Policy Organizations select/elect their own
  chairs and board members
• Composition of Nominating Committee includes
  particular interest groups and public interest.
• GNSO structure more detailed
• Establishes Country Code SO (CNSO)
• Disestablishes PSO Establishes TAC
• Governmental involvement strengthened in terms of
  how broadly the GAC is involved and gives new
  power to GAC.
• Remains a public benefit corporation chartered in
  California, with an elected Board of Directors

13
ICANNs Board Structure--15 member board
(presently 19), 5 non voting Liaisons

• Voting Members (15)
• Nominating Committee appoints 8
• Policy Supporting Organizations each select 2
  (for a total of 6)
• President of ICANN
• Non voting Liaisons (5)
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
• IAB/IETF
• Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
• Security Advisory Committtee (SAC)
• Government Advisory Council (GAC)

14
Supporting Organizations

• GNSO Generic Names Supporting Organization
• CNSO Country Names Supporting Organization
• ASO Addressing Supporting Organization
• No Protocol Supporting Organization in new model
• Four Standing Advisory Committees
• GAC
• TAC
• RSSAC
• SAC
• All would be appropriately staffed

15
GNSO Purpose engaging in activities relevant
to gTLDs

• Developing policy recommendations to the ICANN
  board
• Nurturing consensus across the GNSOs
  constituencies
• Initially 6 voting constituencies
• Open to adding others as provisionals, but have
  to meet certain criteria
• Providers Users
• -gTLD registries -business const.
• -gTLD registrars -int. property const.
• -ISP const. -non commercial const.

16
GNSO Council aka Generic Names Council

• Initially, 6 voting members elected, 2 each,
• by the provider voting constituencies
• and user voting constituencies
• PLUS
• Three voting members elected by NomCom
• AND
• One non voting liaison appointed by the GAC

17
Further Organizational Details GNSO

• Chair selected by voting members of GNSO
• Size may change if provisional constituencies
  become voting constituencies, goal is to maintain
  overall balance among three main groups as well
  as equality of representation between provider
  and users. Votes may be reallocated accordingly
  with these changes.
• Renewable two year, staggered terms

18
Further Organizational Details GNSOs General
Assembly is Significantly Modified

• Member of GNSO Council, appointed by the Council,
  as chair
• Cross constituency meeting place of voting and
  non voting constituencies
• Exists for purpose of exchange of information and
  ideas
• Resource for creation, under GNSO Council
  direction, working groups, drafting groups, Task
  Forces
• Not forum for decision making or taking formal
  positions no votes
• Use of moderated discussion lists and forums.
  Unmoderated lists can exist in other fora.
• GNSO Council has responsibility for GA
• Review by Board via independent entity of GNSO
  and Council in 12 months with changes possible at
  that time if needed

19
CNSO PURPOSE ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES RELEVANT
TO COUNTRY CODE TOP LEVEL DOMAINS

• Develops policy recommendations to the ICANN
  Board
• Nurtures consensus across the CNSOs
  constituencies members, including the
  name-related activities of the ccTLDs
• ERC
• Acknowledged diversity of ccTLDs, concerned with
  which responsibilities fall under purview of
  national or local jurisdiction and those that
  lead to the need for global harmonization.
• Concluded CNSO is forum where distinctions will
  be further developed and from which global
  aspects will emerge.
• Concluded there is an interplay between ccTLD
  domain names and other identifiers whose global
  policy coordination ICANN is charged with and
  that interaction within the ICANN sphere is
  required.

20
CNSO Composition and Selection

• Intended to be a policy development body
• Voting membership include representatives of
  ccTLDs registries committed to global policy
  development through ICANNs processes, as
  evidenced by signed agreements or by other means,
  such as funding support
• CNSO Council composed of a) regionally elected
  members selected by and from among voting ccTLDs
  and b) several additional voting members chosen
  by the NomCom, with emphasis on individuals with
  experience in global names policy and c) a non
  voting GAC liaison. Regionally elected members
  should comprise about 2/3s of Voting members.
• Shouldnt be separately incorporated, or a trade
  association for cc Administrators. Those
  functions should occur outside ICANN.

21
Status on Addressing ccTLD Agreements

• ERC hasnt addressed these issues
• Progress is being made
• ERC recommends that the Board encourages the GAC
  and delegates from the global ccTLD community to
  explore possible resolutions

22
ASO Address Supporting Organization

• Viewed as working well
• Few changes except addition of non voting GAC
  liaison

23
Advisory Committees

• GAC Committee with bylaws determining its
  membership. Advisory to Board.
• Has non voting liaision seat on Board, policy
  organizations, and other advisory Committees.
• Should receive notice and opportunity to comment
  on all ICANN policies before taken.
• Invites the GAC to explore ways for multi-way
  communications

24
RSSAC Root Server System Advisory Committee

• Stays largely the same
• Adds GAC liaison
• Appoints a non voting liaison to Board
• Review of RSSAC by ICANN to be conducted on
  recommendations on effectiveness, including
  security planning and current relationship to
  ICANN
• Some have expressed concern about further
  formalization of some operational aspects
  however the present root server operators have
  widespread community support.

25
SAC Security Advisory Committee

• Stays largely the same
• Adds GAC liaison
• Appoints non voting liaison to Board

26
TAC Technical Advisory Committee

• Available to provide technical advise and
  guidance to Board and other organizations
• Resource and active watchdog for technical issues
• Meeting point for various parts of technical
  community
• In part, replacement for PSO, but has different
  purpose.
• At minimum,membership could include IETF, ITU,
  ETSI, and W3C, plus three members with strong
  technical background appointed by the NomCom.

27
Nominating Committee (NomCom)Purpose select
Directors and other individuals

• Intended to balance representative selection of
  other directors and positions to ensure that
  ICANN can benefit from individuals of highest
  integrity who place public interest above special
  interest, and who are knowledgeable about the
  environment ICANN operates in.
• Chair appointed by Board and two non voting
  liaisons, RSSAC and SAC.
• The NomCom is an attempt to balance providers,
  users, technical and public interests.

28
Composition of the 19 delegates appointed to the
NomCom

• One delegate from each of the following
• gTLD registries Academic and other public users
• gTLD registrars ccTLD registries
• Consumer/Civil Society Address Registries
• Ind. Domain Name holders IP Organizations
• IAB/IETF Internet Service Providers
• Large Business Users TAC
• Small Business Users GAC
• PLUS
• Unaffiliated public interest persons (4)

29
Selection of the NomCom

• Constituencies select their own reps
• Where no constituency is in place, Board will
  appoint delegates following consultation with
  bodies who speak for the affected groups
• Will be further defined in Transition Process
• Objective would be to qualify other
  constituencies to appoint noncom delegates
• At Large could play part as matures
• Terms would be non renewable two year terms
• Limitations on serving as board member for a
  year following serving on NomCom

30
Policy and Process

• ICANN Board is ultimate decision making body.
• May be instances when Board has to act if
  consensus not reached
• Everything that ICANN does in not policy. Certain
  characteristics should determine what is policy
• Policy development through bottom up consensus
  process should be encouraged.
• IF Board doesnt accept a policy recommendation
  of a policy body, it must return to the SO with
  clear statement of concerns to be addressed
• If resubmitted to Board, a 2/3s majority would
  be required to reject or modify.

31
Policy and Process, contd

• Process New policy development or revisions can
  be generated by Policy body, or by Board.
• Clear criteria are presented for any policy
  development process.
• Emergency situations might require temporary
  measures.
• Elements of policy development must include
  timelines, process for public input and other
  advice, and process for consensus wherever
  possible.
• Staff support will be provided to SOs
• Task Force of representatives from ICANN
  community will recommend specific set of policy
  development procedures and timetables, to
  complete work by August 31,2002

32
Accountability

• Ombudsman Office is established, reports to the
  Board. Has its own budget, authorized by Board.
  Charter adopted by Board after public comment.
• Public Participation Staff position to manage
  public participation and facilitate receipt and
  analysis of all public comments.
• Reconsideration amended to apply to actions by
  staff which are alleged to contradict board
  policy or inconsistent with known facts, or
  2)actions by Board alleged to be based on error.
  Sets timeline for reconsideration.
• Amendments to by-laws require 2/3s vote, as now
• Creation of non binding arbitration will be
  required for allegations that Board acted in
  conflict with bylaws.

33
Government Participation

• GAC to appoint liaison to
• Board
• Nominating Committee
• Non voting liaisons to each of the SO councils
  and the Advisory Committees
• Appoint contact individual to coordinate between
  IANA and particular government officials in
  delegations or redelegations are pending
• GAC should be requested to participate in
  dialogue with ICANN and ccTLD community re
  consummation of agreements that provide framework
  of accountability

34
Advisory Panels

• Board can create expert advisory Panels
• Advise is not binding, but adds to record

35
Funding

• Core of funding to come from those registries and
  registrars with agreements primarily today the
  gTLD registries and registrars
• Base funding should come from these sources
• Other sources include RIRs and ccTLDs where ICANN
  does not yet have agreements
• Board should pursue a mechanism where those with
  agreements forward a fee based on approx. 25
  cents US. This fee is collected by the registries
  and registrars on behalf of all beneficiaries of
  the ICANN process.
• Expenditures are subject to public annual budget
  approval.
• Priority to build reserves. Amount can be reduced
  once reserves are in place.

36
Internal ICANN Structure

• Technical/operational functions ICANN manages
  should be organizationally and functionally
  segregated to the extent possible from policy
  functions.
• There is no plan to separate technical and
  policy functions into separate organizations

37
Some Interesting Points

• Role of ccTLDs seems better recognized and
  importance of positive dialogue seems clearer.
• Relationship of funding mechanism and how it
  applies to ccTLDs unclear.
• Agreement to keep the users and providers
  together in policy making in gTLDs is positive.
• Selection of own board members and chairs by
  policy entities is improvement and key.
• Approach to structure of policy development SOs
  is still rather top down through insertion of
  NomCom selected participants, and new GAC liaison

38
Interesting Points, contd

• Structure of NomCom and its scope and the
  non-constituency selected delegates is rather
  unclear
• Role of NomCom in how many/who they select seems
  very significant. Scope of influence appears
  broad for untested new organization.
• Although not voting, governments via the GAC seem
  to have moved into a watch and liaison role in
  all functions. Represents a significant shift and
  a huge change in work responsibility for the GAC
  members
• Recognition of need to staff policy development
  important step.

39
What are the Other Key Areas which still need
addressing?

• Still lots of work to be done after Bucharest on
  incomplete areas affecting ccTLDs
• Process of design of new gTLD SO may also have
  implications for ccTLDs
• Transition from DNSO into new CNSO will require
  planning and coordination with existing entities
• Do the GAC members want new role have time and
  finances to support expanded work functions
  implied?
• Does this change the private sector leadership in
  any significant way?
• Other Questions?

40
APTLD on Reform

• A comparison of the APTLD position paper with the
  report of the Board Committee on Evolution and
  Reform

41
Aptld paper ERC.

• Focused on Lynn paper,which
• Invites governments to bring pressure on cctlds
• Was written alone

• Departs substantially from Lynn paper
• Encourages GAC and cctlds to talk
• Has received substantial ccTLD input

42
APTLD ERC

• Failure to reach contracts due to
  misunderstanding by ICANN of role of LIC,
  Govts.,ccTLD managers, and ICANNs relationship,
  leads to imposition of g-solution

• global aspect is of extreme importance,
  .requires an intense interaction within the
  icann sphere

43
APTLD ERC

• ccTLDs require entry in the IANA database
• and root server service
• Supports White Paper principles

• No comment
• No comment
• General support of some, abandons direct election
  of _at_Large board seats

44
APTLD ERC

• Does not favour enhanced role for governments

• Places GAC appointees on Board, g-SO and ccSO and
  their councils.
• Permits GAC comment
• ( or approval?) of every policy developed

45
APTLD ERC

• Approves of ccSO
• Disapproves of Nominating committee appointing SO
  Board members

• Approves of CNSO
• SOs select own Board members

46
APTLD ERC

• Queried legal nature
• maintains independent review

• Confirms
• California corporation
• maintains modified independent review, and adds
  Ombudsman

47
Further Comments

• APTLD has resolved to seek clarification from the
  ERC on a number of matters.
• Until those answers have been considered, APTLD
  reserves its position on those matters

48
APTLD questions of ERC

• The questions of the ERC are
• 1.What is the interplay and what are the other
  identifierswhich requires the intense
  interaction with ICANN of page 11, para 2?
• 2. What do the extra appointees to the
  International Council 1/3 of the ccSO, while
  only 1/4 of the g?

49
APTLD questions of ERC

• What is the imbalance in the ccSO, which is
  made up of cc managers, to make policy for
  ccTLDs, which the NomCom appointees rectify?
• If the NomCom is in response to the need for at
  large representation, where was it ever
  recommended that the At Large make appointments
  throughout the ICANN structure?

50
APTLD comments on ERC

• There are occasional lapses in language in the
  Report where g-names are not clearly
  distinguished from c-names
• At pages 5, paras. 56 refer to market
  mechanisms to promote a competitive environment
  and
• competition in the registration of domain
  names
• at page 19 a per domain name levy is calculated
  of 0.25.

51
APTLD comments on ERC

• No reason is given as to why the ccSO could not
  separately incorporate, nor function additionally
  as a trade association.
• Its hard to sustain an argument that failure to
  reach a cctld contract, a root server agreement,
  or an RIR contract is due to burdensome process.

52
APTLD Conclusion

• We are cautiously optimistic.
• This is a good position to negotiate from.
• Our (cctld) efforts in explaining our case seems
  to be achieving results.
• We are committed to further work with our cctld
  colleagues and ICANN entities to further this
  important work