[ga] Nominet UK's response to ICANN's Strategic Plan

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have included, below, the response of Nominet (the UK's ccTLD registry) to ICANN's Strategic Plan. There is a clear wish and invitation for ICANN to become more involved and integrated with the local internet communities around the world, and to consider co-operative approaches rather than independent outreach initiatives in various countries. Section 8 is interesting because it flags up just how little actual participation there is, to date, in ICANN's ccNSO : just 17% of all ccTLDs, and most of those very small ones. In this context, any decision-making process which explores money-raising from ccTLDs ( and this could amount to a third of ICANN's money-raising requirements) needs to more proactively involve the other 83% of ccTLDs. Registries like Nominet do not see why they should levy a charge, say, on domain registrations to finance gTLD areas, or fund areas which are already provided at a country level by ccTLD registries. In short, ICANN needs to justify any money it seeks to appropriate from ccTLDs and if this is to be achieved consensually then it needs to get more ccTLDs truly on board. Why should British registrants, registering domain names in their own country, be asked to pay for the processes needed to expand gTLDs or US-based registries? Any commercial expansion of gTLDs should occur in a commercial environment, based on investment and returns, and supported by gTLDs themselves, not propped up by "taxes" on ccTLDs.

The Nominet letter is copied out below:

Yrs, Richard Henderson www.atlarge.org 



Dear Paul 

ICANN Strategic Plan 

Nominet UK, the country code Top Level Domain registry for .uk, thanks ICANN for the opportunity to comment on the ICANN Strategic Plan 2003-04 to 2006-7. We fully recognise that it will have been a major piece of work and no easy task to produce the Plan and to develop the strategic priorities contained within it. In our experience, it can be challenging to develop strategic plans that balance the sometimes conflicting needs of a large range of stakeholders, during a period of rapid external and internal change. The publication of the Plan will assist in establishing dialogue between stakeholders and ICANN and will also assist in establishing priorities. Our feedback on the Plan should therefore be set in this context and is intended to be constructively supportive. We have resisted the temptation to make overly detailed comment, but would be happy to amplify on any area should this be considered helpful. 

1. General Strategic Plan Content Much of the content of the Plan details ICANN's achievements to date and 'Where we are now'. This will be informative for stakeholders new to ICANN and is helpful in setting the background to the strategic plan. However, the areas detailing 'Where we are going' and 'How and when we are going to get there' are comparatively less developed and detailed. Given the nature and extent of some of the proposed developments, it would perhaps be helpful to develop these aspects of the Plan further. In particular, we would suggest the full allocation of projects or initiatives to particular years of the Plan period and the identification of priorities and progress milestones. The further development of these aspects would then assist ICANN staff with the setting and management of stakeholder expectations, the development of a project programme, the development of the financial strategy and the budget process.

2. Strategic Priorities The mission of ICANN stresses its role in ensuring the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems and strategic priority one is identified in the Plan as stability and security. It is not clear whether the priorities are in order of importance. Nominet believes that this is the most crucial of ICANN's strategic priorities and should be identified as such. The stability and security section of the Plan also appears to be relatively light in contrast to the other strategic priorities. We assume that this is because the focus is on strengthening what is already in place, but would suggest that assessment of the size of the 'gap' between the current and desired positions for each of the priorities would help stakeholders better understand the strategic plans. With regard to strategic priority two, it needs to be made clearer that the development and management of initiatives that foster competition and consumer choice, whilst supporting compliance with existing policies and contracts, applies only to the gTLD market. For the ccTLDs, competition and consumer choice at registrar level is a responsibility of the respective governments, registries and local Internet communities. 

3. Financial Strategy The need to develop and implement a financial strategy is identified within the plan, but it is not clear when or how this will be developed and what changes to the Plan may need to be contemplated if ICANN's income exceeds projections, does not meet projections or if costs, such as those related to litigation, increase significantly. Given that the ICANN funding requirement is projected to increase by 165% during the life of the Plan and that diversification of income sources may well take some time to develop, it would be helpful to develop the financial strategy at an early stage. We would recommend from experience that this should include the development of multiple scenarios, varying some of the key assumptions that will affect finances, such as the stated assumption that overall domain growth will continue at 15% per annum. It should also be acknowledged by all ICANN stakeholders that the Plan may need to be iterated several times, depending on income levels. It might also be possible to develop partnerships with other members of the Internet community to reduce costs, for example, to assist with the provision of accommodation to establish an ICANN presence in each ICANN region. In turn, this may also provide the benefits of building closer relationships and mutual understanding with members of the Internet community. 

4. Communications Strategy The need to develop and implement a communications strategy is identified within the plan, but it is not clear when or how this will be developed. It is suggested that this should be developed as early as possible during the Plan period, particularly as the cost of the comprehensive and multilingual strategy that is being proposed may perhaps have been difficult to estimate at this stage. It may also be possible to develop partnerships with other members of the Internet community to reduce communication costs, for example by using existing regional and local mechanisms and fora. In turn, this may also provide the benefits of building closer relationships and mutual understanding with members of the Internet community.

5. Human Resources Strategy The need to develop and implement a Human Resources strategy does not appear to have been identified within the plan, and it is not clear whether such a strategy already exists. Given that the number of ICANN staff is forecasted to increase by 50 (167%) over current numbers during the Plan period and that some staff will be based internationally, it is suggested that if there is not an existing strategy, this should be developed at an early stage in order to attract, train and retain talented and able staff. Nominet speaks with some experience of this issue, having experienced similar percentage changes in staffing in response to market demand. It should also be recognised that the recruitment and training of this number of staff within the suggested time period will be challenging and may have a considerable impact on the ability of the management team to implement the many new projects that will be likely to result from the agreement of the Plan. Indeed, in our own experience, management and staff capacity rather than capability can often become an issue. 

6. Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) We note that there appears not to be any reference to the updating of the UDRP in the Plan, which may well be disappointing to the Intellectual Property community and to registrants covered by the UDRP. As you may be aware, Nominet runs a Dispute Resolution Service for .uk domain name disputes, which has recently been revised for the second time since its inception, in response to Local Internet Community feedback. 

7. IANA Nominet welcomes the proposals to strengthen the core IANA services and to improve support services for those that use IANA. The IANA function is of crucial importance to Nominet, other ccTLDs and the gTLDs and so it is hoped that these proposals will be implemented during the early years of the plan. Nominet would be happy to offer our experience and assistance in developing the more detailed vision and implementation plans that will need to follow in order to realise these proposals. 

8. ccTLD Participation in ICANN We note that the Plan reports that ccTLD managers participate through the ccNSO in ICANN's policy development process. However, the ccNSO is still at an early stage. Given that only 17% of ccTLDs have joined the ccNSO to date and this number includes a disproportionate number of small ccTLDs, this statement should perhaps be more properly expressed as an aspiration. We acknowledge and appreciate the fact that ICANN is currently seeking to address this issue and has been responsive to our suggestion that ccNSO reform offers a way forward, but this may take some time. Therefore, whilst the ccNSO is in a formative stage, the Plan should identify as a priority mechanisms for the continuation of constructive dialogue and liaison with the members of the ccTLD community who have not joined the ccNSO during the period of the plan, such as via the CENTR organisation.

9. ccTLD Funding of ICANN We note the Plan expectation that the ccTLD community will collaborate through the ccNSO to devise a methodology for its ICANN contributions. However, given the low membership of the ccNSO at this formative stage, the Plan may also need to include other mechanisms for dialogue with the 83% of ccTLDs who are currently not members of the ccNSO, particularly as a 33% contribution increase is projected in the first year of the Plan. It is assumed that the recommendation of the 1999 Task Force on Funding, which suggested that ccTLDs contribute a 35% share of ICANN's continuing revenue requirements, will be reviewed as part of the development of the funding methodology. As you will be aware, Nominet and many other ccTLDs feel that they should not be required to resource activities that do not concern them such as fostering gTLD competition, registrar compliance and gTLD registrant support. Neither do we feel that we should be required to fund activities that are already funded by us at a Local Internet Community level such as dispute resolution, local policy development and registrant support. We note that revised Governmental Advisory Committee principles have been published since the Plan was first drafted, which will need to be taken into account when iterating the Plan. We agree with the stated GAC main principle of subsidiarity and that ccTLD policy should be set locally, unless it can be shown that the issue has global impact and needs to be resolved in an international framework. Like many ccTLDs, Nominet already funds a policy development process that seeks to involve all relevant local stakeholders. Nominet and the UK Local Internet Community therefore remain strongly against any form of domain name transaction or billable event based fee. However, Nominet stands ready to fund our fair share of IANA and ICANN services that are directly relevant to ccTLDs. I do hope that this feedback will be of use to you as you further develop and implement the Plan. Nominet endorses the coordination, collaboration and cooperation approach that is now being taken by ICANN and thanks ICANN for the opportunity to comment on its Strategic Plan. 

Yours sincerely 

Lesley Cowley (Mrs.) 

Chief Executive Nominet UK