February 2019 - comments-strategic-plan-20dec18@icann.org

[Comments-strategic-plan-20dec18] Ratified: ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 18, 2019

Feb. 18, 2019

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=102140281>. Content of the statement remains unchanged. Ratification information is included on the cover page. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Re: [Comments-strategic-plan-20dec18] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021–25
by Mark Svancarek (CELA) Feb. 12, 2019

Feb. 12, 2019

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(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Fares, David Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 4:02 AM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; comments-strategic-plan-20dec18(a)icann.org Cc: BC List <bc-gnso(a)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(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 11 February 2019 22:58 To: comments-strategic-plan-20dec18(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-strategic-plan-20dec18@icann.org> Cc: BC List <bc-gnso(a)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.

1 0

[Comments-strategic-plan-20dec18] NCSG Comment
by Rafik Dammak Feb. 12, 2019

Feb. 12, 2019

Hi, Please find attached the NCSG comment. Best Regards, Rafik

1 0

[Comments-strategic-plan-20dec18] Submission of GAC Comments on ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025
by Robert Hoggarth Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

On behalf of the GAC Chair, attached please find the comments of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the draft ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025. Best regards, --- Robert Hoggarth VP – Policy Development and GAC Relations Washington, D.C. +1 424 558 4805

1 0

[Comments-strategic-plan-20dec18] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021–25
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

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)

1 0

[Comments-strategic-plan-20dec18] GNSO Council Comment - FY21-25 Five Year Strategic Plan
by Berry Cobb Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

Dear ICANN Org, On behalf of the GNSO Council leadership, please find attached the GNSO Council’s comments on ICANN’s proposed Five Year Strategic Plan for FY21-FY25. Thank you. B Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant on behalf of GNSO Council Leadership

1 0

[Comments-strategic-plan-20dec18] RrSG response to ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025
by Zoe Bonython Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

Hello, On behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG), I would like to submit the attached response to the ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

[Comments-strategic-plan-20dec18] RySG Comment on the ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025
by Demetriou, Samantha Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

On behalf of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), please find attached our comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025. In the interest of time, we did not conduct a vote on these comments. We did discuss them on our mailing list and during a biweekly conference call, and no member opposed their submission. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Best, Samantha Demetriou RySG Vice Chair, Policy

1 0

[Comments-strategic-plan-20dec18] Pending Ratification: ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=102140281>. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process with a note that the statement is pending ALAC ratification. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-strategic-plan-20dec18] ccNSO-SOPC comments on ICANN Strategic Plan 2021-2025
by Giovanni Seppia Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

Dear ICANN, Please see attached the ccNSO-SOPC comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan 2021-2025. Kind Regards, Giovanni Seppia [cid:image002.jpg@01D4C24F.FA6EFE50]<http://www.eurid.eu/>Giovanni Seppia / External Relations Manager Phone: +32 (0)2 401 27 50 Mobile: +39 335 8141733 Website: www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu> Address: Woluwelaan 150 - 1831 Diegem - Belgium [cid:image007.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30]<https://twitter.com/EUregistry> [cid:image008.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/eurid/> [cid:image009.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy

1 0