Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021–25
Below (and attached) is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding the Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021 – 25. The BC welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021 – 25. Overall, the BC agrees with the content of the Plan, but notes the following suggestions:. Regarding the Introduction: The BC notes that ICANN is proposing to amend its Vision statement in this next Strategic Plan, therefore it makes sense to acknowledge this somewhere in the Introductory language. On the 6th paragraph and last sentence, BC recommends that a link reference for the mentioned bylaws be provided. Question: What constitutes the global public interest? BC thinks this phrase needs to be defined before it is used. As noted most recently in our Jun-2013 comment to Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT-2), here are the principles and process the BC suggests to define the global public interest for ICANN purposes: The BC has previously recommended a definition for public interest that is limited to the scope of ICANN's mission. Namely, to ensure the availability and integrity of registration and resolution services. But it is not for the BC or the ATRT to define public interest for ICANN. The definition should be derived through a process that is open to the ICANN community and Internet stakeholders – including a prominent role for representatives of governments, which often claim to have unique standing to know what is in the public interest of their citizens. The BC notes the Mission of ICANN has not been changed, and supports this decision. Regarding Strategic Objectives: The BC notes that Strategic Objectives result from a diligent outreach and information gathering process, and generally supports objectives that are surfaced with this level of rigor and diverse input. To the extent there is implicit priority in how ICANN lists these Strategic Objectives, it stands to reason that #3 should be first because that is in itself ICANN’s main remit. However, Strategic Goal 3.4 concerning new gTLDs seems tactical and not strategic, and not consistent with the level of import of other points in this section, particularly in light of the weakness of initial new gTLD impacts. We agree Security is next most important, given the continued abuse of DNS and the resultant lack of trust in, for example, web browsing and email, two globally accessible and pervasive systems built on DNS. Improving the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model is clearly a priority. ICANN is rightfully developing a reputation for being slow, combative, and less transparent. Decisions and process in the EPDP are just the latest examples in this regard. As to geopolitical issues, ICANN appears at risk of being marginalized by governments and organizations that wish to increase their influence over internet policy, as evidenced by policies originating out of the EU, China, and Russia. If ICANN truly wants to be a ‘Champion’ of the open internet it surely needs to retain or regain its footing on the global stage. Notwithstanding the opening paragraph in this section, stating a Strategic Objective of financial sustainability incurs moral hazard. One can achieve financial stability by increasing revenue or operating more efficiently. But only the latter involves the true discipline ICANN needs, based on observing spending trends over the 5 years of the prior (current) Strategic Plan. This Objective should be re-worded to reflect only Goal 5.2, and possibly 5.3. To this extent, the BC welcomes the ‘Operating Plan’ which the document states is forthcoming. -- This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye, Tim Chen, and Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)
Thanks, Steve. To which EU issues are we referring when we say the EU wants to have more of a government role of Internet policy. I also wonder if “Internet policy” is the right phrase, perhaps “internet governance” is more appropriate. Maybe we can also flag the EPDP process here, arguing that resolving both data protection and access for legitimate interests, which GDPR requires, is an existential challenge for ICANN and its ability to handle legal/policy challenges that intersect with its technical mandate. From: Bc-gnso <bc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 11 February 2019 22:58 To: comments-strategic-plan-20dec18@icann.org Cc: BC List <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021–25 Importance: High Below (and attached) is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding the Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021 – 25. The BC welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021 – 25. Overall, the BC agrees with the content of the Plan, but notes the following suggestions:. Regarding the Introduction: The BC notes that ICANN is proposing to amend its Vision statement in this next Strategic Plan, therefore it makes sense to acknowledge this somewhere in the Introductory language. On the 6th paragraph and last sentence, BC recommends that a link reference for the mentioned bylaws be provided. Question: What constitutes the global public interest? BC thinks this phrase needs to be defined before it is used. As noted most recently in our Jun-2013 comment to Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT-2), here are the principles and process the BC suggests to define the global public interest for ICANN purposes: The BC has previously recommended a definition for public interest that is limited to the scope of ICANN's mission. Namely, to ensure the availability and integrity of registration and resolution services. But it is not for the BC or the ATRT to define public interest for ICANN. The definition should be derived through a process that is open to the ICANN community and Internet stakeholders – including a prominent role for representatives of governments, which often claim to have unique standing to know what is in the public interest of their citizens. The BC notes the Mission of ICANN has not been changed, and supports this decision. Regarding Strategic Objectives: The BC notes that Strategic Objectives result from a diligent outreach and information gathering process, and generally supports objectives that are surfaced with this level of rigor and diverse input. To the extent there is implicit priority in how ICANN lists these Strategic Objectives, it stands to reason that #3 should be first because that is in itself ICANN’s main remit. However, Strategic Goal 3.4 concerning new gTLDs seems tactical and not strategic, and not consistent with the level of import of other points in this section, particularly in light of the weakness of initial new gTLD impacts. We agree Security is next most important, given the continued abuse of DNS and the resultant lack of trust in, for example, web browsing and email, two globally accessible and pervasive systems built on DNS. Improving the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model is clearly a priority. ICANN is rightfully developing a reputation for being slow, combative, and less transparent. Decisions and process in the EPDP are just the latest examples in this regard. As to geopolitical issues, ICANN appears at risk of being marginalized by governments and organizations that wish to increase their influence over internet policy, as evidenced by policies originating out of the EU, China, and Russia. If ICANN truly wants to be a ‘Champion’ of the open internet it surely needs to retain or regain its footing on the global stage. Notwithstanding the opening paragraph in this section, stating a Strategic Objective of financial sustainability incurs moral hazard. One can achieve financial stability by increasing revenue or operating more efficiently. But only the latter involves the true discipline ICANN needs, based on observing spending trends over the 5 years of the prior (current) Strategic Plan. This Objective should be re-worded to reflect only Goal 5.2, and possibly 5.3. To this extent, the BC welcomes the ‘Operating Plan’ which the document states is forthcoming. -- This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye, Tim Chen, and Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC) This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
Macron’s speech at IGF was an indicator of French/Germany/Swiss intent to pursue more multilateral internet governance, I think, and during our BASIS F2F with German delegation at IGF they confirmed our interpretation. So perhaps not EU, per se. From: Bc-gnso <bc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Fares, David Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 4:02 AM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; comments-strategic-plan-20dec18@icann.org Cc: BC List <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021–25 Thanks, Steve. To which EU issues are we referring when we say the EU wants to have more of a government role of Internet policy. I also wonder if “Internet policy” is the right phrase, perhaps “internet governance” is more appropriate. Maybe we can also flag the EPDP process here, arguing that resolving both data protection and access for legitimate interests, which GDPR requires, is an existential challenge for ICANN and its ability to handle legal/policy challenges that intersect with its technical mandate. From: Bc-gnso <bc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 11 February 2019 22:58 To: comments-strategic-plan-20dec18@icann.org<mailto:comments-strategic-plan-20dec18@icann.org> Cc: BC List <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021–25 Importance: High Below (and attached) is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding the Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021 – 25. The BC welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021 – 25. Overall, the BC agrees with the content of the Plan, but notes the following suggestions:. Regarding the Introduction: The BC notes that ICANN is proposing to amend its Vision statement in this next Strategic Plan, therefore it makes sense to acknowledge this somewhere in the Introductory language. On the 6th paragraph and last sentence, BC recommends that a link reference for the mentioned bylaws be provided. Question: What constitutes the global public interest? BC thinks this phrase needs to be defined before it is used. As noted most recently in our Jun-2013 comment to Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT-2), here are the principles and process the BC suggests to define the global public interest for ICANN purposes: The BC has previously recommended a definition for public interest that is limited to the scope of ICANN's mission. Namely, to ensure the availability and integrity of registration and resolution services. But it is not for the BC or the ATRT to define public interest for ICANN. The definition should be derived through a process that is open to the ICANN community and Internet stakeholders – including a prominent role for representatives of governments, which often claim to have unique standing to know what is in the public interest of their citizens. The BC notes the Mission of ICANN has not been changed, and supports this decision. Regarding Strategic Objectives: The BC notes that Strategic Objectives result from a diligent outreach and information gathering process, and generally supports objectives that are surfaced with this level of rigor and diverse input. To the extent there is implicit priority in how ICANN lists these Strategic Objectives, it stands to reason that #3 should be first because that is in itself ICANN’s main remit. However, Strategic Goal 3.4 concerning new gTLDs seems tactical and not strategic, and not consistent with the level of import of other points in this section, particularly in light of the weakness of initial new gTLD impacts. We agree Security is next most important, given the continued abuse of DNS and the resultant lack of trust in, for example, web browsing and email, two globally accessible and pervasive systems built on DNS. Improving the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model is clearly a priority. ICANN is rightfully developing a reputation for being slow, combative, and less transparent. Decisions and process in the EPDP are just the latest examples in this regard. As to geopolitical issues, ICANN appears at risk of being marginalized by governments and organizations that wish to increase their influence over internet policy, as evidenced by policies originating out of the EU, China, and Russia. If ICANN truly wants to be a ‘Champion’ of the open internet it surely needs to retain or regain its footing on the global stage. Notwithstanding the opening paragraph in this section, stating a Strategic Objective of financial sustainability incurs moral hazard. One can achieve financial stability by increasing revenue or operating more efficiently. But only the latter involves the true discipline ICANN needs, based on observing spending trends over the 5 years of the prior (current) Strategic Plan. This Objective should be re-worded to reflect only Goal 5.2, and possibly 5.3. To this extent, the BC welcomes the ‘Operating Plan’ which the document states is forthcoming. -- This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye, Tim Chen, and Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC) This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
Agree, Mark. The threat is more about multiple, unilateral regulation than multilateral. In this video<https://vimeo.com/316152756/fd8d1d0333> from State of the Net<https://www.stateofthenet.org/sotn-19/#Panels> in DC on 29-Jan, I challenged the EU rep when he claimed that Europe had everything figured out on privacy. I’d welcome your reactions. On 2/12/19, 1:58 PM, "Mark Svancarek (CELA)" <marksv@microsoft.com<mailto:marksv@microsoft.com>> wrote: Macron’s speech at IGF was an indicator of French/Germany/Swiss intent to pursue more multilateral internet governance, I think, and during our BASIS F2F with German delegation at IGF they confirmed our interpretation. So perhaps not EU, per se. From: Bc-gnso <bc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Fares, David Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 4:02 AM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; comments-strategic-plan-20dec18@icann.org Cc: BC List <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021–25 Thanks, Steve. To which EU issues are we referring when we say the EU wants to have more of a government role of Internet policy. I also wonder if “Internet policy” is the right phrase, perhaps “internet governance” is more appropriate. Maybe we can also flag the EPDP process here, arguing that resolving both data protection and access for legitimate interests, which GDPR requires, is an existential challenge for ICANN and its ability to handle legal/policy challenges that intersect with its technical mandate. From: Bc-gnso <bc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 11 February 2019 22:58 To: comments-strategic-plan-20dec18@icann.org<mailto:comments-strategic-plan-20dec18@icann.org> Cc: BC List <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021–25 Importance: High Below (and attached) is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding the Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021 – 25. The BC welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021 – 25. Overall, the BC agrees with the content of the Plan, but notes the following suggestions:. Regarding the Introduction: The BC notes that ICANN is proposing to amend its Vision statement in this next Strategic Plan, therefore it makes sense to acknowledge this somewhere in the Introductory language. On the 6th paragraph and last sentence, BC recommends that a link reference for the mentioned bylaws be provided. Question: What constitutes the global public interest? BC thinks this phrase needs to be defined before it is used. As noted most recently in our Jun-2013 comment to Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT-2), here are the principles and process the BC suggests to define the global public interest for ICANN purposes: The BC has previously recommended a definition for public interest that is limited to the scope of ICANN's mission. Namely, to ensure the availability and integrity of registration and resolution services. But it is not for the BC or the ATRT to define public interest for ICANN. The definition should be derived through a process that is open to the ICANN community and Internet stakeholders – including a prominent role for representatives of governments, which often claim to have unique standing to know what is in the public interest of their citizens. The BC notes the Mission of ICANN has not been changed, and supports this decision. Regarding Strategic Objectives: The BC notes that Strategic Objectives result from a diligent outreach and information gathering process, and generally supports objectives that are surfaced with this level of rigor and diverse input. To the extent there is implicit priority in how ICANN lists these Strategic Objectives, it stands to reason that #3 should be first because that is in itself ICANN’s main remit. However, Strategic Goal 3.4 concerning new gTLDs seems tactical and not strategic, and not consistent with the level of import of other points in this section, particularly in light of the weakness of initial new gTLD impacts. We agree Security is next most important, given the continued abuse of DNS and the resultant lack of trust in, for example, web browsing and email, two globally accessible and pervasive systems built on DNS. Improving the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model is clearly a priority. ICANN is rightfully developing a reputation for being slow, combative, and less transparent. Decisions and process in the EPDP are just the latest examples in this regard. As to geopolitical issues, ICANN appears at risk of being marginalized by governments and organizations that wish to increase their influence over internet policy, as evidenced by policies originating out of the EU, China, and Russia. If ICANN truly wants to be a ‘Champion’ of the open internet it surely needs to retain or regain its footing on the global stage. Notwithstanding the opening paragraph in this section, stating a Strategic Objective of financial sustainability incurs moral hazard. One can achieve financial stability by increasing revenue or operating more efficiently. But only the latter involves the true discipline ICANN needs, based on observing spending trends over the 5 years of the prior (current) Strategic Plan. This Objective should be re-worded to reflect only Goal 5.2, and possibly 5.3. To this extent, the BC welcomes the ‘Operating Plan’ which the document states is forthcoming. -- This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye, Tim Chen, and Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC) This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
participants (3)
-
Fares, David -
Mark Svancarek (CELA) -
Steve DelBianco