ISPCP comments to ICANN Strategic Plan Draft notes from conference call 19 September 2007, Olof Nordling ISPCP: Tony Holmes, Mark McFadden ICANN: Doug Brent, Kurt Pritz, Denise Michel, Olof Nordling Following an introduction by Doug on the planning process, aiming for a draft Strategic Plan for discussion in LA and adoption in December, and an introduction by Tony on the ISPCP internal consultations, the dialogue focused on the recently published Issues Document and with ISPCP comments as follows, in the order of the listed issues: 0. General 0.1 The issues captured are many and call for priority setting, both in order to appropriately concentrate the efforts and to deflect future potential criticism of ICANN for not achieving all goals. 0.2 The ISPCP suggests that the issues be divided into two groups, with internal and external focus, respectively, since the target audiences and resource requirements differ considerably between these two groups. (This approach proved helpful to the ISPCP itself when suggesting priorities) 0.3 Within these groups, the issues should be prioritized in the strategic plan and these priorities should be mirrored for the corresponding actions in the operating plan. 1. IDNs 1.1 This issue is to be considered “external” and has the potential to become one of the biggest successes of ICANN, both technically and politically. It should have the highest priority. 1.2 Visibility should be added on how issues will be addressed across both IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs. Outreach to application developers is highly recommended in order to avoid a recurrence of similar problems as when gTLD strings longer than three characters were introduced - when the ISPs had to deal with many complaints for malfunctions emanating from omissions by application providers. 2. New gTLDs 2.1 This issue is “external” (with a considerable internal component), with highest priority and deserves more than a couple of lines in the text, although it is recognized that the issue is inextricably linked with 1 above and that there is very much substance behind the summary lines. 2.2 When introducing new gTLDs, there will be a need to gradually build on experience and a constant review process should be highlighted here, as envisaged in the New gTLD implementation plan. Text from the PDP could well be used to bolster this section of the strategic plan on this and other aspects. 3. Security 3.1. ICANN has a primary role regarding security in infrastructure and this is to be considered as an internal issue of high priority. High priority should be given to formalizing the relationship with the root server operators and a security component should be a part of this. 3.2 Regarding DNSSEC, it is clear that the root zone should be signed, but this is rather an operational aspect. It is more important is to take a holistic perspective to infrastructure protection, where DNSSEC is just one tool. A roadmap mirroring such an approach could be introduced. 3.3 Security in the application layer, including child protection etc., is not a primary role for ICANN and this should be given low priority. However, further clarity on this is needed, for example in the operational plan, before ISPCP can give a final verdict. There may be justified cases, for example special treatment of IDN aspects in line with 1.3 above. 4. Capacity building 4.1 This is an external issue, where ICANN has a part to play, but not a leading role, and it should not be given top priority. ISPCP support for the approach will depend on how details are reflected in the operational plan. 5. IPv4 vs IPv6 5.1 This is an issue that should be commercially driven and where the locus of the policy discussions is with the RIRs, not with ICANN. ICANN’s role is informational and operational, for IANA. Although this is not a strategic issue as such for ICANN, it deserves to be mentioned in the strategic plan, with a low priority. 6. Participation 6.1 The ISPCP is supportive of fellowship programs and similar approaches to facilitate participation, based on recent experiences. 6.2 ICANN regional meetings would easily lead to duplication of efforts and do not enjoy the ISPCP’s support, unless performed in partnership with regional entities for building bridges to other stakeholders. The ICANN meeting schedule is heavy enough as it is and should not be expanded. 6.3 Participation is regarded as an “internal” issue and should be given medium priority, while excluding regional meetings, see 6.2. 7. Policy processes 7.1 This is considered an internal issue of high priority. Progress should be sought in an evolutionary way, rather than a revolutionary. This view applies to the GNSO improvement efforts as well as to the wider ICANN context. Broader involvement across SOs and ACs is desirable and developing, but it is uncertain whether the current structures for such involvement are the right ones. 8. Risk management 8.1 This is an internal issue of medium priority where it is recognized that ICANN has taken much appreciated strides recently. The focus should now be on building on the successes in that regard. 9. Accountability 9.1 This issue is of an internal nature and calls for careful priority setting. Focus should be on pursuing the issues identified by the President’s Strategy Committee as requiring modifications of Bylaws or procedures. 10. Independence 10.1 This is an internal issue of medium importance, where the ISPCP supports ICANN’s move towards independence while highlighting the need for having clear metrics for the steps forward. Reference is also made to the President’s Strategy Committee’s good work on this topic. A vision of how to make measured progress in the JPA is desirable as a basis for continued community discussion. 10.2 The issue calls for skilful wording and handling when setting targets in the strategic and operational plan. It should be noted that the heat on this issue can be reduced as a direct consequence of ICANN progress on other issues with high priority. Concluding words The call concluded with some further thoughts on the external/internal division, agreements on immediate steps and invitations to continued mutual consultations. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com