<html>
<body>
At 03:49 30/10/2013, McTim wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategic-29oct13-en.htm">
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategic-29oct13-en.htm</a>
<br>
Much in here to applaud!</blockquote><br>
At 03:49 30/10/2013, McTim wrote:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategic-29oct13-en.htm">
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategic-29oct13-en.htm</a>
<br>
Much in here to applaud!<br><br>
?<br>
I have studied the (A) mission change, (B) reviewed the target and (C)
considered a good-will follow-up in the considered framework.<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>A. Mission<br><br>
</u></b>I have compared word by word the mission ICANN assigns itself in
this plan with its bylaws. There might be a small downsizing of the ICANN
ambitions as:<br><br>
1. the list of the missions is presented as among the ICANN tasks
("in particular") in the Bylaws, while the plan list them as a
closed this list ("This includes"). <br>
2. the bylaws consider the "three sets of unique identifiers for the
internet" while the plan considers the "following" same
sets (as the IANA function) what means that other new sets could be
created that ICANN would not coordinate.<br>
3. This might result from a change in the coordinating the policy
development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical
functions from coordinating them in general to the same mission but only
for the community's policy.<br><br>
There is no reference to the AoC.<br>
There is a commitment to a non-defined multistakeholder model.<br>
While the bylaws core values label the "community" as the
"internet community", the plan labels "community" as
"ICANN community".<br><br>
Targets includes:<br>
* Create a balanced and proactive approach to engagement with communities
dependent on the domain name system. <br>
* Create a balanced and proactive approach to engagement with
governments. <br>
The Civil Society is not mentioned.<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>B. Targets<br><br>
</u></b>I have reviewed the targets. There is a possible opening (long
delayed internet of things? CCN? ml-DNS? Intersem?) that could explain
the word change above. However, its seems to be preemptively closed by
the expressed wish of centrally coordinating what is distributed by
nature. Therefore, still a DoT (denial of thinking/technology) unless the
IETF/IAB <br><br>
* Further internationalize ICANN to be more inclusive by becoming more
multilingual and providing tools for connection and collaboration
worldwide. <br>
- we would be glad of an effort towards a fully multilingual IDNS
(full orthotypographic support). <br><br>
* Bring ICANN to the world through greater regional engagement to
reinforce our international role. <br>
- where do the bylaws mention an "international" role.
The role is to maintain three excel tables.<br><br>
* Evolve our Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee structures to
meet the changing needs of our diverse, global stakeholders. <br>
- this is interesting: the stakeholders ICANN consider are not the
Internet stakeholders, but the ICANN stakeholders (registrars,
registries, resellers?)<br><br>
* Evolve ICANN Meetings to better support the global community's changing
needs.<br>
- open to all bar-camp?<br>
<br>
* Evolve policy development and decision-making processes to be more
inclusive, efficient and effective. <br>
- inclusive of who? DN holders?<br><br>
* {Considered additions or changes from the community and Strategy
Panels, as appropriate} <br><br>
* Support developing communities through programs that will enable them
to understand and participate in the ICANN process and the
multistakeholder model. <br>
- registrars sales trainings? This confirms the legitimate
role of ICANN as a professional union of the "naming
industry".<br><br>
* Address the challenges faced by developing countries seeking inclusion
and development, consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. <br>
* Engage in capacity building at a regional level to engage and develop
the community globally for ICANN involvement. <br>
- may be use OpenOffice ?<br><br>
* {Considered additions or changes from the community and Strategy
Panels, as appropriate} <br>
* Foster and coordinate a secure, stable and resilient identifier
ecosystem, including the stable, secure, trusted operation of the DNS.
<br>
- the way the DNS is a distributed system does this means an
independent DNSSEC Agency as planned by Paul Towmey?<br><br>
* Plan for emerging changes in the use of domain names and other
identifiers. <br>
* Develop a technology roadmap for domain names and other identifiers to
help guide ICANN activities and inform the Internet ecosystem. <br>
* Develop a technology roadmap for ICANN and security operations to
support the operational stability, reliability, resiliency, security, and
global interoperability of the DNS. <br>
* Coordinate a responsible opening of the DNS for "creative
disruption" and innovation. <br>
- these are key architectonic points that are in line with
ICANN/ICP-3 but definitely blocked by the intent to coordinate instead of
concert or cooperate.<br><br>
* Support the evolution of the domain name marketplace to be robust,
stable and trusted. <br>
* Support the attainment of broad-scale adoption and operation of IPv6
throughout the Internet. <br>
* {Considered additions or changes from the community and Strategy
Panels, as appropriate}<br>
- what is considered is the market place, not the usage.
Professional area again.<br>
<br>
* Improve the technical sophistication of ICANN staff and stakeholders,
and ensure structured coordination of ICANN's technical resources. <br>
* Develop a culture of knowledge and expertise by attracting top talent
to staff and the community. <br>
* Create role clarity for the Board, staff and stakeholders. <br>
- you bet?<br><br>
* Ensure ICANN's long-term financial stability and sustainability.<br>
- drastic reduction of non-necessary costs?<br>
<br>
* Ensure a strong linkage between ICANN's Strategic Plan, Operating Plan
(with measurable objectives), and Budget. <br>
- what are the ICANN deliverables?<br>
- what is the added value?<br>
- who are the clients?<br><br>
* {Considered additions or changes from the community and Strategy
Panels, as appropriate} <br><br>
* Clarify ICANN's role with respect to the coordination of the
globaInternet's systems of unique identifiers to ensure we keep pace with
an evolving Internet ecosystem, including in key areas relating to:
consumers, security, compliance / regulatory, public interest, business
innovation, and intellectual property rights. <br>
- good!<br><br>
* Ensure ICANN's role is clear, recognized, and well understood
worldwide. <br>
- quite a challenge!<br><br>
* Create a balanced and proactive approach to engagement with communities
dependent on the domain name system. <br>
- I suppose these communities are of resellers? what about
buyers? What about UDN (universal digital names communities?)<br><br>
* Create a balanced and proactive approach to engagement with
governments. <br>
- what about registrants, multilateral organizations and civil
society?<br><br>
* Facilitate an issues-based cooperation and problem-solving environment.
<br>
* Develop a stable framework for Internet governance. <br>
- ??? you mean "actively participate to the development of a
stable ..."<br><br>
* Foster cooperation, fairness, communication and trust among the
Internet Governance ecosystem. <br>
- good! I see "foster competition" has disappeared from
the bylaws. It is now preeminent in the OpenStand principles.<br><br>
* Engage in and highlight complementary relationships; be stronger
together.<br>
- good! With who? Against who?<br>
<br>
* {Considered additions or changes from the community and Strategy
Panels, as appropriate}<br><br>
<b><u>C. Follow-up<br><br>
</u></b>The best is most probably to initiate a "global community
depending on the digital namespace" and use this opening to start a
dialog? <br><br>
This would be the same kind of responsible and measured response that one
started with the "I*" coalition (architectural clarification,
IUCG, emergence of the OpenUse). <br>
The point now seems to understand if the CS will be on the "I*"
or on the users' side? And if it is active or not.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
</body>
</html>