Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project
The ALAC considers the issue of Name Collision in the DNS an area of importance for the minimization of unintended consequences for Internet end users. The ALAC appreciates the need to have a Name Collision definition for purposes of scoping the inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP), in order for the NCAP Study One to be manageable and on point, and therefore supports the Proposed Definition of Name Collision and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project of 1 July 2019. Of particular importance to us are:

(1) The recognition and inclusion of Type B situations (ie. B. In scope but not intended to be the subject of data studies) which provides built-in peripheral consideration of such situations with decision for examination through data analysis at a later stage if a compelling case were to arise within Study One; and

(2) The possibility of amending the Definition of Name Collision and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project should further pertinent information come to light at a later stage either through the ongoing work of the NCAP DG, NCAP Working Party and/or input obtained from the party/ies eventually contracted to undertake NCAP Study One.

Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System
The ALAC strongly supports the overall proposal and appreciates the opportunity to comment. The RSS, according to RRSAC37, needs to evolve so it remains a reliable, resilient, and sustainable service in the face of increasing traffic and cyberattacks. However, the ALAC finds it difficult to accept that ICANN is not considered a primary stakeholder with regard to the RSS, given that the Domain Name System and its reliable and trusted operation is a prime reason for ICANN’s existence. The ALAC also encourages that Internet users, the ultimate user and beneficiary of the DNS, should be listed as having a stake in the existence and evolution of the RSS.

The financial model is also of some concern to the ALAC. No figures are provided to allow even order-of-magnitude estimates. It is surely time that we begin to understand exactly what level of funding will be required and hypothesize on where such funding will come from.

Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the development of Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan
The ALAC considered the Draft Financial Assumptions, Projections and Operating Initiatives, and offered comments on the following topics among others:

The ALAC is not optimistic that Financial Assumptions A (Roll-out of New gTLDs) and B (New Business Models – Geographic gTLDs and Brand gTLDs) will be highly successful vehicles to new revenue. Although the first round of new gTLDs did bring in considerable revenue, the ALAC notes that these earlier rounds represented the “low hanging fruit” in the new gTLD market.
The ALAC agrees that ICANN continue to put money towards the an urgent need to resolve current challenges around Universal Acceptance, as well as the primary strategic goal of security, stability and trust.
The ALAC agrees that work which needs to be done on evolving the multistakeholder system is substantial and complex and that it must be ongoing with adequate resources directed towards its completion. The objectives related to diverse and inclusive participation in policy making in an efficient and effective way are essential to improving the system, underlining that face-to-face meetings are essential to the functioning of the multistakeholder model.
The ALAC/At-Large community propose some clarity via a listing of priorities and statements on the impact of each project on ICANN org and on each of the unique ACs and SOs. The community believes that while policy development and implementation activities are integral to the planning process, so are other activities, such as those that enable communication, collaboration, and outreach, between RALOS, At-Large members and other constituencies.

Public Comment for Decision

...

Next Steps to Improve the Effectiveness of ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model
The ALAC summarized its comments as follows:

I. Strengthen ICANN’s bottom-up multistakeholder decision-making process and ensure that work gets done and policies are developed in an effective and timely manner.

Issue 1: Prioritization of work. ALAC feels this must be addressed (Category A). Some suggestions include: spreading the workload, increased outreach (ATLAS III, further incentives to keep contributing volunteers, adequate knowledge and resources (specified in II) The entire community,as well as ICANN.org must contribute to the resolution of this problem.

Issue 2: Precision in scoping the work. This issue may fall into Category A - must be addressed - or Category B -- might be partially addressed in current processes. We foresee scoping that is tight and smart and relevant to the process. It is impossible to say who should be responsible when so much activity around it is unresolved.

Issue 3: Efficient use of resources. This is a category A issue which must be addressed. We recognize that it might be partially addressed by current processes but cannot assess the situation until these processes are completed. We are concerned that PDP 3.0 may offer efficiency at the cost of inclusiveness which we feel would be a backwards step in the evolution of ICANN’s MSM.

Issue 4: Roles and responsibilities and a holistic view of ICANN. This is a category A issue although it will require further processes to resolve. ALAC seeks a bottom-up review of roles and responsibilities as an independent process.

II. Support and grow active, informed and effective stakeholder participation.

Strategies to expand the concept of participation are offered as well as various resources and support needed to ensure informed participation. We consider this to be a Category A issue -- the model cannot evolve if it is not addressed. This is a major concern for At Large and other volunteer-based constituencies and all will need to be involved in addressing it. Support from ICANN,org and the Board will be necessary.

Issue 5: Representativeness and inclusiveness. Mentorship programs are a key part of ensuring that the MSM system remains representative and inclusive. Relevant constituencies as well as staff need to make sure these programs are working as they are intended and that they are reaching the right demographics. Inclusiveness at the leadership level needs to be improved through a bottom up process with staff assistance.

III. Sustain and improve openness, inclusivity, accountability and transparency.

Issue 6: Culture, trust and silos. This is a category A issue that needs to be addressed in this process. All constituencies need to reach across their boundaries, respect for other viewpoints must be reinforced. This is a problem in many large organizations and there are professional services available to help build trust and cooperation. By engaging some of these services, ICANN.org could help constituencies build a better working environment.

Issue 7: Complexity. This is an inherent feature of ICANN work, but where it can be alleviated, ICANN.org should take the lead. Make sure information such as the website is well organized and understandable and closely monitor the internet governance environment for issues that will impact ICANN directly.

Issue 8: Consensus. Creating conditions that would facilitate consensus is the goal of the issues already listed. Preserving the voice of end users in the decision-making processes is crucial to ICANN’s MSM model -- a Category A issue in which all parties play a role but the role of the Board will be particularly important.

In addition, the ALAC submitted comments in response to:

Public Comment for Decision

Registration Directory Service (RDS-WHOIS2) Review Team Final Report 25 Nov 2019
Proposed IANA SLAs for ccTLD Creation and Transfer 25 Nov 2019
DRAFT PTI and IANA FY21 Operating Plan and Budgets 27 Nov 2019