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

1. ICANN Evolution and ReformAnalysis and CommentsJune 2002Bucharest, Romania

2. ICANN IRP CHAIR: VINT CERF 4 ccSO 3 DNSO 3 PSO 3 ASO 4 VB’s GAC 5 @ Large Domain Name Support Org. Protocol Support Org Address Support Org At LargeMembership176,837 Becky BurrBob ShawChristopherWilkinsonWIPOOthers Names Council (21) AddressCouncil ISPS ITUIETFETSIWWWC Trade Marks Business RIPEARINAPNIC Non-Commercial Registries Registrars Country Code Managers General Assembly ICANNThe Internet Compartion for Assigned Names and Numbers President & CEO: Mike Roberts November 1998 - 9 Member Virgin Birth Board

3. ICANN CHAIR: VINT CERF 5 Liaison * Nom Com 2 CCSO 8 “At Large” 2 GNSO 2 ASO Generic Support Org Country code Support Org Address Support Org g Registries g Registrars c Registries RIR’s ISP’s Large bus. users Small bus. users IP orgs Academic/Public Consumer groups Individual Nameholders IAB/IETF TAC GAC 4 unspecified Selected by the Nominating Committee* Names Council (16) AddressCouncil International Council (number unspecified) TACIAB/IETFRSSACSACGAC ISPS Registries Voting members commit to ICANN policy development Registrars RIPEARINAPNICLACNICtbd Non-Commercial Trade Marks Business Others ? General Assembly ICANNThe Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers President & CEO: Stuart Lynn Board seats Standing committees

4. The “Names Council” ISP Business ISP Business Registries Non Commercial Registries Non Commercial Registrars IP Registrars IP Elected by Nom Com (voting) Elected by Nom Com (voting) Elected by Nom Com (voting) 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, cont’d • 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” didn’t bring any answers • Input from community confirms that ICANN does have some policy making responsibilities • ICANN’s role is to perform the technical coordination and to obtain the policy guidance for it. • ICANN’s role in policy should be limited to those areas reasonably related to ICANN’s technical mission

10. Mission and Core Values • Differences in view will continue regarding when ICANN is outside its mission parameters • ERC didn’t 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. ICANN’s Mission is to coordinate stable operation of the Internet’s 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 DNS’s root name server systems -policy-development as necessary to perform these functions.

12. ICANN’s Structure, as presented, has some significant changes: • Composition of Board changes • Board doesn’t 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. ICANN’s 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 GNSO’s 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: GNSO’s 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 CNSO’s 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 ICANN’s 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 2/3’s of Voting members. • Shouldn’t be separately incorporated, or a trade association for cc Administrators. Those functions should occur outside ICANN.

21. Status on Addressing ccTLD Agreements • ERC hasn’t 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 doesn’t 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 2/3’s majority would be required to reject or modify.

31. Policy and Process, cont’d • 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, cont’d • 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. 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 Aptld paper ERC.

42. Failure to reach contracts due to misunderstanding by ICANN of role of LIC, Govts.,ccTLD managers, and ICANN’s relationship, leads to imposition of “g-solution” “global aspect is of extreme importance, …….requires an intense interaction within the icann sphere” APTLD ERC

43. ccTLD’s 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 @Large board seats APTLD ERC

44. 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 APTLD ERC

45. Approves of ccSO Disapproves of Nominating committee appointing SO Board members Approves of CNSO SOs select own Board members APTLD ERC

46. Queried legal nature maintains independent review Confirms: California corporation maintains modified independent review, and adds Ombudsman APTLD ERC

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 identifiers”which 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. 5&6 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.