Dear Mark Would you please send us the powerpoint presentation you have made during our constituency meeting about comments on ICANN Strategic Plan? Thanks Antonio Tavares -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] Em nome de Mark McFadden Enviada em: sexta-feira, 3 de dezembro de 2004 06:21 Para: Mansourkia, Magnolia Cc: 'Mark McFadden'; ispcp@icann.org; ispcp-activities@icann.org Assunto: RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan Hi Maggie! We miss you here in Cape Town. The issue of >3 character TLDs came up in the constituency again. But I believe that there is a general realization that the ISPs are not responsible for filtering those names at this point. In an answer to a question on this topic I said that I saw no evidence that ISPs were filtering DNS resolutions nor were they filtering outbound SMTP traffic based on names. It's tragic, but the problem is much more difficult than this. Instead, there are software developers and applications builders that seem to think that TLDs are always either two or three characters in length. That's a much more difficult community to reach through education and outreach. What I think is happening is that there is a gradual realization that blaming the ISP community for the problem is a very easy, but not very effective approach to the problem. mark Secretariat ISPCP Constituency, gNSO Quoting "Mansourkia, Magnolia" <Maggie.Mansourkia@mci.com>:
Hi guys. How are the meetings going? I think what you've come up with below is great and have nothing further to add. Also, I'm curious-any further discussions from registries re the alleged filtering of newer TLDs? Cheers, Maggie
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mark McFadden Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:39 AM To: ispcp@icann.org Cc: ispcp-activities@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] ISPCP Comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan
The ISPCP would like to make the following remarks in support of the strategic plan and raise a few issues. Whilst the strategic plan is seen as a welcome step forward, we have concerns that the proposals still lack measurable objectives and detailed timelines.
� The Strategic Plan is unclear as to whether the relationship between ICANN and the Root Server Operators will be formalized to the extent of a contractual relationship. The ISPCP supports the formalization of relationships with the Root Server Operators. The precise nature of that relationship is a matter that we reserve comment upon. Whatever that relationship ends up being, those providing Root Server functionality must be accountable to ICANN. � We support the five key suggestions for IANA including: improving IANA request tracking and responsiveness; providing more reliable operating capacity; doing better reporting from IANA on operations issues; making root zone management professional; and, making root servers themselves more robust. We especially support the move towed project management orientation for request tracking and crucial IANA transactions. � We believe that the reference made to the ASO Community “building global consensus policy governing IP addresses� is not supported by the demise of an independent ASO and the assertion of global address policy development by the RIR CEOs through the NRO. � The ISPCP welcomes the appointment of the ombudsman and the role in helping to educate consumers – a task, which in the past, has often been left to ISPs. � We are also glad to see more emphasis placed on compliance so that policy work developed within the gNSO becomes more meaningful. � It is essential that all ICANN activities result from a bottom-up process and the PDP process needs to be flexible and tailored to meet the demands of individual policy opportunities. � We seek more information with regard to the proposed regional meetings: whether they will be focused on outreach and education activities, or part of the formal policy development process. If the latter, then the ISPCP questions how this will be integrated into the discussions necessary at full, global ICANN meetings. � Whilst we have commented on some of the issues raised by the ISPCP consideration of the strategic plan it is apparent that far more discussion and consultation is required. Therefore, the ISPCP requests that the ICANN Board of Directors acknowledge this requirement and seek to address it in a manner that meets with the full acceptance of the ICANN community. � The ISPCP also notes with dismay that the Supporting Organizations were not consulted prior to the public dissemination of the document. While the intent may be to craft a plan for operation and management of ICANN, it is clear that the plan has far-reaching consequences for ICANN’s delivery of services and thus, its policy. This process needs to change so that Supporting Organizations have a meaningful way to have input at an earlier stage in the plan development.
Mark McFadden ispcp-activities@mcfaddencentral.com Secretariat ISPCP Constituency, ICANN