| Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status (Please click "Adopted" to download a copy of the Final Statement) | Assignee(s) | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30.04.2014 | ICANN Strategy Panels: ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem | ADOPTED 14Y, 0N, 0A
| Holly Raiche | 02.05.2014 | 06.05.2014 23:59 UTC | 09.05.2014 00:00 UTC | 09.05.2014 00:00 UTC | 14.05.2014 | 15.05.2014 23:59 UTC | 08.05.2014* | Alice Jansen alice.jansen@icann.org | AL-ALAC-ST-0514-02-01-EN |
| ICANN Strategy Panels: Public Responsibility Framework | ADOPTED 14Y, 0N, 0A | AL-ALAC-ST-0514-03-01-EN | ||||||||||
| ICANN Strategy Panels: Multistakeholder Innovation | ADOPTED 14Y, 0N, 0A | AL-ALAC-ST-0514-04-01-EN | ||||||||||
| ICANN Strategy Panels: Identifier Technology Innovation | ADOPTED 14Y, 0N, 0A | AL-ALAC-ST-0514-05-01-EN |
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to download a copy of the Statements addressed to the Panels on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem, Public Responsibility Framework, Multistakeholder Innovation, and Identifier Technology Innovation below.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem
The ALAC strongly supports the report from the Panel on ICANN’s Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem. Although the Panel was developed prior to the US Government's announcement about the IANA function, it nevertheless provides valuable insights and recommendations for ICANN's expanded role in Internet Governance. We particularly support the conclusion from the Panel: that 'the multistakeholder model is by far preferable and should be elaborated and reinforced'.
The diagram on Governance, grouped into the Logical layer (technical, content and social layers) and Infrastructure Layer (domain names and numbers, and connectivity and universal access) is a very helpful way to conceptualize Internet Governance issues.
The Panel's suggestions for the Roadmap on 'how do we get there from here', and the discussions under the following headings also have some very useful pointers on directions for ICANN’s new role in:
- Globalize not internationalize
- Consolidation and simplification of root-zone management
- A web of affirmation of commitments – bilateral or multilateral agreements between and among ICANN and non-governmental eco system partners. For government-ICANN relationships – a separate and common affirmation text so as to achieve egalitarian treatment (GAC may be of assistance)
It is worth noting that globalizing the process of accountability through a web of relationships and suggesting accountability panels is indeed a potential way forward but only if a panel can provide recourse should a party to an affirmation of commitments believe that another party has failed in some way. The ALAC has concerns about the practical workability of this scenario but is ready to assist with the building of this web of relationships.
Public Responsibility Framework
The ALAC strongly supports the report from the Panel on Public Responsibility Framework. Although the Panel was developed prior to the US Government's announcement on IANA, it nevertheless provides valuable insights and recommendations for ICANN's expanded role in Internet Governance.
This Panel is a useful reminder of the ways ICANN has started to globalize its activities, particularly its capacity building, leadership training, support for stakeholder attendance, and its strategic plans for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East. It is very clear both from public comments made at the Public ICANN Board meeting and at NetMundial, however, that real assistance and support for participation in ICANN is a critical element in the globalization of ICANN and Internet Governance. Many countries and organizations are simply unable to self-fund attendance at ICANN meetings or even full participation in working groups. Websites, remote hubs and other new technologies do not equal physical stakeholder to stakeholder meetings and dialogue.
The core issue is therefore additional funding for those unable to self fund in person participation in ICANN. Currently, funding is channeled through the contracted parties (registries and registrars) in their contracts with ICANN. This sole source of funding is a concern since it is akin to a single product company. There may be other models for funding participation that do not rely on the 'contracted parties' model that can ensure all parties - registrars, registries, governments, civil society and users have equal seats at the table. The ALAC hoped that the Public Responsibility Framework Panel would have examined this core problem. Perhaps should it be one of the Panel’s conclusions that this essential study be undertaken.
Multistakeholder Innovation
The ALAC strongly supports the report from the Panel on Multistakeholder Innovation. Although the Panel was developed prior to the US Government's announcement about the IANA function, it nevertheless provides valuable insights and recommendations for ICANN's expanded role in Internet Governance.
This panel is a useful reminder of the need to reach beyond the ‘usual suspects’ at ICANN meetings to move from what the panel calls ‘stakeholder engagement to global engagement', with suggestions on how new techniques and technologies can be used to support that engagement. However, we have serious concerns with some of the Panel’s findings.
The ALAC is troubled that some of the suggestions for obtaining broad-based input, for instance crowdsourcing, may be used as alternatives to existing methods of reaching consensus on issues. While new techniques may be valuable to obtain additional, diverse input on issues, they should not be seen as replacing the valuable policy processes of collaboration and dialogue through working group discussions and face-to-face meetings. Furthermore, crowdsourcing for policy input risks breaking the truly bottom-up policy development taking place both in the GNSO and in the ALAC, thus compromising hard work in Working Groups. Crowdsourcing also has the potential to offer a stage for vocal and organized participants whilst smothering the input of stakeholders that are less well represented or whose native tongue is not English. ICANN should promote working group level participation in its component organizations and not promote more top-heavy individual, sporadic and potentially disrupting participation at higher levels of the pyramid.
One suggestion that would encourage wider, global participation is the development and use of tools (in addition to other interpretation provided) to assist participation for those whose voice should be heard but do not communicate (often deprived communities), or not communicate easily in the English language (thus requiring reliable automated translation).
Ultimately, multistakeholder innovation should be targeted at enabling widespread participation at grassroots level – the base of the Policy Development Process – as opposed to encouraging counter-arguments at top level, once the work to reach consensus has already been done.
Identifier Technology Innovation
The ALAC strongly supports the report from the Panel on Identifier Technology Innovation. Indeed, the report provides valuable insights and recommendations for future identifier technology developments.
However, the ALAC is surprised that the recommendations of the Panel do not include any acknowledgement or recommendations about the threats to the DNS apart from a Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack. The foremost quality of the DNS being its stability, the ALAC would suggest that a chapter be drafted about innovative ways to enhance DNS stability, not only technically but also politically.
The ALAC believes that had the Panel had enough time to study the current status of Stability and Security of the DNS, a key missing recommendation should have been made that there should be a coordinated risk management program concerning the DNS itself. Indeed, the Board DNS Risk Management Framework only monitors the Risk to ICANN and not the Risk to the DNS nor to the Internet, if the DNS fails - whether technically or politically.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
6 Comments
Ariel Liang
Comments from Holly Raiche
~~~~~
First, we should applaud them as offering some very valuable suggestions on ways forward for ICANN. While they were written before the NTIA announcement and NetMundial, they are still very relevant and useful.
Start with strong support for the paper’s conclusion: that the multistakeholder model is by far preferable and should be elaborated and reinforced
Most Useful: The Paper on ICANN’s Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem. The diagram on Governance, with the Logical and Infrastructure Layers is a very helpful way to conceptualise governance issues at the various layers under the two headings.
Their suggestions for the Roadmap on how do we get there from here, and the discussions under the following headings have some very useful pointers on directions for ICANN’s new roles. The headings:
The next Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework is a useful reminder of the ways ICANN has started to internationalise its activities, particularly its capacity building, leadership training, support for stakeholder attendance, and its strategic plans for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East. (the plea from a person at the Board meeting in Singapore on the need for money and training for the developing countries to support their participation - as echoed in NetMundial - means this role of ICANN must not only continue but expand.
The panel on Multistakeholder Involvement is a useful reminder of the need to reach beyond the ‘usual suspects’ as ICANN meetings to move from what the panel calls ‘stakeholder engagement to global engagement’.
The final panel - Identifier Technology Innovation Panel is a reminder of the important technical issues that confront ICANN. Just what is called a ‘partial list’ of ICANN’s current portfolio (below) is a reminder that what ICANN does goes well beyond just hames and numbers.
Their conclusions reinforce the importance of the technical issues ahead for ICANN:
As the paper reminds us: In the short term new Top Level Domains (TLDs) will come online. Your Facebook account is looking to become your single sign-on credential for the Internet - as is your Google account. Over the long term, the research community has a lot of different projects including Content Centric Networking (CCN), Information Centric Networking (ICN), Named Data Networking (NDN), and many other variants.
Ariel Liang
Comments from Olivier Crepin-Leblond
~~~~~
Thanks very much for this very comprehensive and useful summary.
Is there anything in those reports which you would have suggested needed improvement?
Did any of the panels miss something obvious which should have been included?
A short Statement which supports and welcomes the work of the panels is probably the output that we'll be sending out. However, It is also worth reading whilst formulating our comment, are the very few comments received by each of the panels:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/itipanel/
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/msipanel/
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/prfpanel/
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ioepanel/
On my part, I would note, so far, four comments I think the ALAC should make:
1. On the ITI panel, I would suggest adding that no coordinated risk management program concerning the DNS itself is in place at ICANN. The Board DNS Risk Management topic is flawed in that it looks at the Risk to ICANN and not the Risk to the DNS nor to the Internet, if the DNS fails. Admittedly, there are technical studies but as we all know, most Risks today are political. In that extent, the work of the DSSA was completely ignored.
2. On the MSI panel, my concern is that the key to multi-equal-stakeholder engagement, adequate funding of stakeholders that are not able to self-fund their involvement since it is not "their business", is yet to be resolved. The current approach of thinking technology, whizz-bang web sites and the like of remote hubs does not make a stakeholder equal to stakeholders that are able to be physically present at conferences. As an example, I spend more time outside conference rooms, picking people and pulling them into a corridor, than I do going & speaking at the mic. If some stakeholders can speak in corridors, for them to all be equal they all need to be able to speak in corridors.
3. On the PRF Panel, my concern again relates to funding. We all know that ultimately, all funds into the Internet Ecosystem come from the end user, which some call the "consumer". However, the channels through which the funds arrive are controlled by the industry itself; in ICANN's case, it is the Domain Name Industry. ICANN's track record in upholding the Public Interest is poor due to this conflict of interest since the Channel controllers (Contracted parties) have purported that *they* are funding ICANN - a complete fallacy.
The funding leverage used by contracted parties immediately produces an imbalance when decisions need to be made by ICANN. They introduce flaws in ICANN Staff, Board and Community thinking which then puts the Public Responsibility at second place - the first place being the financial health of ICANN for ICANN to continue to operate.
"It's all about the money".
A proposal for a better model would be for a *tax* on all domain names & IP addresses to be collected via a parallel process which does not need to go through a contract like the RAA from which Internet end users are precluded a seat, even observer seat at the negotiating table.
Another suggestion is for States to provide ample funding to the ICANN process for its role(s). The ITU is funded adequately, why isn't ICANN?
4. On ICANN's Role, translation issues are still a huge hurdle. If United Nation Agencies are able to produce documents in 6 languages as a moment's notice, why does it take a month for the ALAC to receive translated versions of a document? This is all a matter of funding *again* like all of the other points at ICANN and as long as the funding model of ICANN revolves around the well-being of its Industry and not the end user, ICANN's role in the multi-stakeholder model will hold little legitimacy.
Ariel Liang
Comments from Holly Raiche
~~~~~
Thanks Olivier
Some really good thoughts.
My suggestion (in addition to yours) is to rethink the actual ICANN structure. I particularly agree on the PFR that there really needs to be more funds to support participation. There is no point to some of the consultation tools if the relevant communities do not have the bandwidth/resources.
And a question that has always worried me: Why are the GNSO and ccNSO in the middle and everyone else is ‘advisory’. It must be strange, if we are arguing for equality of voice for all stakeholders, to have the safety and security people, governments, the root servers and all end users as mere ‘advisors.'
I”ll combine your thoughts and mine to come up with comments. And yes, it is a disappointment that there aren’t more comments.
Holly Raiche
This version will draw the comments of both Olivier and myself (and input from Alan) into a more structured response.
The ALAC srongly supports the reports of all of the Panels. Although the Panels were developed prior to the US Government's announcement on IANA, they nevertheless provide valuable insights and recommendations for ICANN's expanded role in Internet Governance. We particularly support the conclusion from the Panel of ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem: that 'the multistakeholder model is by far preferable and should be elaborated and reinforced'.
Comments on each of the Panels are below:
ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem
The diagram on Governance, grouped into the Logical layer (technical, content and social layers) and Infrastructure Layer (domain names and numbers, and connectivity and universal acess) is a very helpful way to conceptualise Internet governance issues.
The Panel's suggestions for the Roadmap on 'how do we get there from here', and the discussions under the following headings also have some very useful pointers on directions for ICANN’s new role in:
Globalise the process for accountability with a web of relationships – suggesting accountability panels – panels that can provide recourse should a party to an AOC believe another party has failed in some way that must be accounted for Globalise not internationalise.
Public Responsibility Framework
This Panel is a useful reminder of the ways ICANN has started to internationalise its activities, particularly its capacity building, leadership training, support for stakeholder attendance, and its strategic plans for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East. It is very clear both from public comments made at the Public ICANN Board meeting and at NetMundial, however, that real assistance and support for participation in ICANN is a critical element in the globalisation of ICANN and Internet Governance. Many countries and organisations are simply unable to self-fund attendance at ICANN meetings or even full participation in working groups. Websites, remote hubs and other new technologies do not equal physical stakeholder to stakeholder meeting and dialogue.
The issue is additional funding for those unable to self fund real participation in ICANN. Currently, funding is from the contracted parties (registries and registrars) through their contracts with ICANN. There may be other models for funding paricipation that do not rely on the 'contracted parties' model that can ensure all parties - registrars, registries, governments, civil society and users have equal seats at the table.
Multistakeholder Innovation
Ths panel is a useful reminder of the need to reach beyond the ‘usual suspects’ as ICANN meetings to move from what the panel calls ‘stakeholder engagement to global engagement', with suggestions on how new techniques and technologies can be used to support that engagement.
Our concern is that some of the suggestions, such as crowdsourcing, for obtaining broad-based input may be seen as alternatives to existing methods of reaching consensus on issues. While new techniques may be valuable to obtain additional, diverse input on issues, they should not be seen as replacing the valuable policy processes of collaboration and dialogue through working group discussions and face to face meetings.
One suggestion that would encourage wider, global participation is the development and use of tools (in addition to other interpretation provided) to assist participation for those whose voice should be heard but do not communicate, or not communicate easily in the English language.
Identifier Technology Innovation
This Panel is a reminder of the important technical issues that confront ICANN. The Panel Report provides what it calls a ‘partial list’ of ICANN’s current portfolio (below) as a reminder that what ICANN does goes well beyond just names and numbers.
Their conclusions reinforce the importance of the technical issues ahead for ICANN:
- DNS use in the infrastructure will continue to grow; DNS use in the User Interface (UI) is challenged by search-based alternatives, mobile interfaces, etc.
- ICANN should publish more DNSSEC signed data for reserved labels, etc.
- In cooperation with IETF et al, do a study to define an architectural vision for DNS in 2020.
- Design & prototype open root publication.
- Design a shared zone control system for the root.
- Perform collision exercises to test the ease of implementing [ICANN 2013].
As the paper reminds us: In the short term new Top Level Domains (TLDs) will come online. Your Facebook account is looking to become your single sign-on credential for the Internet - as is your Google account. Over the long term, the research community has a lot of different projects including Content Centric Networking (CCN), Information Centric Networking (ICN), Named Data Networking (NDN), and many other variants.The one comment we would make is that there should be a coordinated risk management program concerning the DNS itself that is in place at ICANN, particularly in light of the IANA announcement. The Board DNS Risk Management only looks at the Risk to ICANN and not the Risk to the DNS nor to the Internet, if the DNS fails.
Alan Greenberg
Add to the section on multistakeholder innovation:
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
A few points:
ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem
The ALAC srongly supports -> strongly supports
"Globalise the process for accountability with a web of relationships – suggesting accountability panels – panels that can provide recourse should a party to an AOC believe another party has failed in some way that must be accounted for Globalise not internationalise."
That sentence needs to be improved.
Public Responsibility Framework
"This Panel is a useful reminder of the ways ICANN has started to internationalise its activities,..."
This sentence uses "internationalise" when we agreed with "globalise" in the previous paragraph?
Multistakeholder Innovation
"Ths panel ..."
This panel
"Our concern is that some of the suggestions, such as crowdsourcing, for obtaining broad-based input may be seen as alternatives to existing methods of reaching consensus on issues. While new techniques may be valuable to obtain additional, diverse input on issues, they should not be seen as replacing the valuable policy processes of collaboration and dialogue through working group discussions and face to face meetings."
To make this point stronger, I suggest adding the sentence: "Indeed, crowdsourcing for policy input risks breaking the truly bottom-up policy development taking place both in the GNSO and in the ALAC, thus compromising hard work in Working Groups. Crowdsourcing has the potential to offer a stage for vocal and organised participants whilst smothering the input of stakeholders that are less well represented or whose native tongue is not English."
At the end of this section I would also suggest adding:
"Ultimately, multistakeholder innovation should be targeted at enabling widespread participation at grassroot level - the base of the Policy Development Process", as opposed to encouraging counter-arguments at top level, once the work to reach consensus has already been done".
Identifier Technology Innovation
This section reads more like a digest of what the panel has done than a set of recommendations of the ALAC. Is the final text going to be just the recommendation about DNS Risks?