ICANN Strategic Planning Development 2011 - Community Workspace

AFRALO

AFRALO comments regarding the draft Strategic Plan 2011-2014
 

AFRALO thinks that together with key routine activities, new actions must be undertaken in each of the work areas to make the strategy “action-oriented”

1. DNS stability and security  
   AFRALO acknowledges that the stability and security of the DNS is an important element for ICANN and the global internet users. Therefore, AFRALO thinks that ICANN should prioritise the support for the implementation of DNSSEC.
   
   AFRALO highly appreciates the ICANN’s initiative to perform training for TLD operators.
   
   AFRALO argues that ICANN should come up with a plan for Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity for its own operations.
   
2. Consumer choice, competition and innovation  
   AFRALO argues that in line with one of ICANN’s core values, which is introducing and promoting competition in the delegation of Top Level Domains where practicable and beneficial to the public interest, ICANN should make the application fee for new TLDs within the reach of each applicant alike. Levying high application fees for all applicants creates the disparity between the have and have-not’s. Therefore, we urge ICANN to review the applicant guide book to reflect the almost unanimous wish regarding the application fees expressed in all public comments on the previous versions, in the Working Group 3 (at-large summit, Mexico) report approved by ALAC, and in the JAS working group milestone report.
   
   We note the positive initiative to provide effective program management for the successful deployment of IDNs through the new gTLD and ccTLD programs.
   
   Conducting education and training programs in partnership with ISOC, local operators and local internet communities is an excellent approach. However, AFRALO believes that part or all of those programs could and should be conducted by ICANN constituencies, such as At-Large structures and regional organizations according to their competences in the subject. 
   For example, Each ICANN meeting in Africa should be an opportunity to conduct training workshops for the African communities.
   
   
3. Core operations including IANA  
   AFRALO takes positive note of the ICANN willing to provide the international Internet community a transparent and collaborative model for root server operations.
   
   AFRALO acknowledges the ICANN commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of policy development and implementation processes and the multi-stakeholder model that engages the global community.
   
   
4. Healthy Internet eco-system 
   AFRALO agrees that continued internationalisation of ICANN is crucial to maintaining a single, global interoperable Internet and a single Internet zone file used globally.
   
   AFRALO takes positive note that ICANN will formalize a cross-stakeholder model, and will also formalize input from the At-Large community into Board discussion.
   
   While recognizing the ICANN effort for a multilingual working environment, AFRALO considers that for an international organization, more commitment is needed to provide translation of all  ICANN documents, and simultaneous interpretation in all meetings (face to face or remote). This interpretation is urgently needed for the fellowship program which is now restricted to the English speakers only.  
   
   AFRALO highly appreciates the commitment to provide Internet governance education to an expanding group of international participants and to promote programs that enhance global participation. The AFRALO ALSes really need this kind of education, coupled with more training on ICANN related issues at local, national, sub-regional and regional levels to reach an effective participation in ICANN policy development process.
    
   ICANN participation in Internet Governance events such as IGF and WSIS forum is of high importance. AFRALO thinks that this participation shouldn’t be limited to nice formal speeches, or an ICANN parallel event, but needs to be more effective by organizing substantial workshops addressing actual subjects and involving the large population of the forum. Such participation will give ICANN more visibility and better credibility. The impact of the so-called substantial workshops will be greater if they are organized by ICANN constituencies rather than the ICANN staff and/or Board.
   
   
   

APRALO

Comment submitted by Hong Xue:
APRALO strongly supports the suggestions that has been forwarded by at-large community and other RALOs that one F2F general meeting annually for all ALSes of one RALO to get together be essential for the success of strategic development of users' participation in ICANN process. APRALO would wish ICANN to consider supporting an APRALO AGM 2011 concurrent with ICANN meeting that is going to be held in Asia-Pacific in June 2011.

EURALO

Comment submitted by Wolf Ludwig:
EURALO repeatedly discussed and broadly reaffirmed that there must be one F2F GA a year to promote its community development and to encourage its members for active participation in ICANN's policy development. Like the years before, EURALO will submit a proposal to the ICANN budget process to ask for travel funding for the next EURALO meeting (GA) which will be held in conjunction with the ICANN European meeting 2012.

LACRALO

General Comments

LACRALO wishes to commend ICANN on the "stream-lined" approach undertaken to develop the draft 2011-2014 Strategic Plan.

We stress the value of the equal multi-stakeholder partnership among business sectors, Governments and end-users, with the ultimate goal to increase of end users’ participation.

Two suggested general improvements-

• The language  availability of documents/slides used for stakeholder consultations in at least Spanish and French.
• Additional slides showing changes from the previous Strategic Plans to the draft Strategic Plan for each of the four pillars (DNS stability and security, Consumer choice, competition and innovation, Core operations including IANA, A healthy internet eco-system) would improve the accessibility and review of the information provided.
  DNS Stability and security
  Under “cooperative TLD training in developing countries”, we are supportive of any such training to involve as many stakeholders as possible including At-Large Structures.
  
  
  Consumer Choice, competition and innovation
  LACRALO is convinced that both financial and professional support shall be required to enable disadvantaged communities to effectively participate in the new gTLD ecosystem towards empowering consumer choice, competition and innovation.
  
  As a consequence, LACRALO is eager for the ICANN community fully embrace the initiative vested in the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG), that seeks to find and propose ways the ICANN community may provide effective support that will enable participation of these communities.
  
  
  
  Core operations including IANA
  LACRALO notes the presence of “IANA request processing” and wishes to suggest an item under community work or staff work relating to the accountability and transparency of ccTLD redelegation requests sent to IANA-
• ccTLD redelegation requests are not public. Hence not all members of the local internet community (http://blog.icann.org/2009/09/local-internet-communities/) may be informed in the discussions related to their ccTLD redelegation.
  A healthy Internet eco-system
  LACRALO is pleased to see the inclusion of “enhanced translation strategy” listed under staff work. The translation of key policy documents, briefing materials, presentations and transcripts; is critical to stakeholder diversity, increased multi-stakeholder participation and wider international engagement as listed in the draft Strategic Plan.  
  
  No doubt there is general consensus regarding the benefits of increased document translations for the community to participate more effectively.
  We acknowledge the hard work done by the new translators group led by Christina Rodriguez (ICANN staff). Due to technical and specific vocabulary used in our meetings it is of utmost importance to maintain a stable team of translators. In the past we have had to postpone teleconferences because it was impossible to understand the translator.
  
  We must continue investing efforts in this regard to further enhance the worldwide end-user community input into ICANN.
  
  We agree with AFRALO that funding should be increased for the translation of documents and simultaneous interpretation in all meetings, including the fellowship program.
  
  Further, the number of Languages should be increased, not only to improve Brazilian Portuguese native speakers in the region but also to other languages such as Chinese, Russian, Arabic, etc.
  
  We believe there is general consensus among the representatives of the RALOs for the need for annual GA for each RALO. There is widespread evidence that a few days of F2F interaction gets matters completed in a significantly shorter time frame than via online communication.
  
  We must assess the cost vs benefits for members of the community, ICANN Staff and other stakeholders and explore financing to hold an Annual GA per Region. If the GA coincides with an ICANN meeting funding can be shared.
  
  In the last fiscal year, ICANN modified its interpretation for “support to the RALOs”. During the signature of MOUs between ICANN and the RALOs, the was no doubt about the commitment of support (or at least an impression of such was made) for the RALOs including financial assistance to ensure a GA (apart from translations and interpretations).  
   
  In the same vein of  AFRALO, we agree there is a need for greater ICANN initiatives to encourage workshop participation in the context of popular participation, governance and the Internet. ALAC is best suited to spearhead this.
  
  Further, we need a regional approach and an inreach/outreach program for the propagation of knowledge in the Internet community and beyond.
  
  Conclusion
  Only through valuing the knowledge and perspective of end-users towards Internet rights and policies can ICANN reap future benefits for the proper use of ICTs in the specified public policy consideration makers.

NARALO