[PC-NCSG] Comment on Draft Operating Plan

[Edward Morris]

Hi everybody,

With the Reply period closing tonight I threw together a last minute public 
comment on ICANN's Draft Five Year Operating Plan and submitted it as a 
personal comment in my name. If anybody would be interested in putting 
together a late submission on behalf of the NCSG (my submission certainly 
can be improved upon) I'd be happy to work together on that. The OP is a 
fairly important document and I wanted to at least get something submitted 
on behalf of the noncommercial community. Text of my submission follows.

Best,

Ed

---

I would first like to thank the ICANN staff for the considerable effort they 
have put into developing the Draft 5 Year Operating Plan. Although a member 
of both the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the Noncommercial 
Stakeholders Group (NCSG), and currently representing the later on the GNSO 
Council, these comments and questions are solely my own and do not 
necessarily reflect the concerns or positions of any organization of which I 
am a member.
 
First, a general comment. While I genuinely like the Metric / Dependency / 
Phasing design of the Plan, in the future I would like to see more 
specificity in the Key Performance Indicators (Metrics) and Phasing sections 
of the Plan. Instead of mentioning the criteria in general terms, specific 
targeted goals, often numeric in nature, should be indicated. This document 
should be useful not only as a guide going forward for ICANN staff and 
management, but should also be purposed for use by the community in 
evaluating the performance of staff and management.  The metrics and phasing 
text in this document is too vague to allow for its extensive use in this 
manner.
 
 
Questions / Comments
 
 
1. I applaud strategic goal 1.1 (S.G. 1.1), to ?further globalize and 
regionalize ICANN functions.?  Yet I am concerned that the only mention of 
languages is a commitment to making ?meeting sessions available in 
multiple languages; languages / scripts represented in ICANN community 
participation?.  ICANN needs to do better.
 
I?m not sure what entirely is meant by the later part of this commitment. 
If it is a commitment for ICANN to assist community groups such as SO?s 
and AC?s to better operate in multiple language I applaud this offering. 
No longer should or can ICANN afford to operate at any level solely in the 
English language. Specifics as to the programmatic assistance ICANN intends 
to provide the community would be most welcome. I am concerned that there is 
no specific mention of any aspect of languages in the phasing section of 
S.G. 1.1. Languages themselves are not even mentioned in S.G. 1.2 (regional 
engagement), which itself must be an error of omission.
 
I am also concerned about the term ?multiple languages?. Simply 
translating meetings and materials into the six official United Nations 
languages is not sufficient. There are ten languages in the world with over 
100 million native speakers; 60 languages with over 20 million native 
speakers. If ICANN truly wants to globalize and regionalize ICANN functions 
it needs to commit to produce basic materials in as many languages as 
possible and to expand intelligently the number of languages it offers more 
extensive services, such as real time translation of meetings, in.
 
One can not participate in ICANN if one can not understand any of what is 
going on. ?One World / One Internet? is only a phrase unless and until 
ICANN?s communications and participatory strategies encompass a truly 
global linguistic commitment. The Finnish speaking teenager in Ivalo, the 
Begali speaking grandma in Kolkata and the Korean speaking teacher in Yanji 
all should have online access to basic ICANN documents in their native 
tongue.
 
2. I am very concerned about the indication in the FY 17 Phasing of S.G. 1.3 
that SO/AC special request processes are to be discontinued. At a time when 
the ICANN community is being asked to do more and more, a reduced financial 
commitment by ICANN to the community is unwise. Are there plans to replace 
the special request process with other programs of financial assistance? If 
so, what are they?
 
3. In the S.G. 3.3 portfolio mention is made of ICANN Technical University. 
This institution is mentioned nowhere else in this document nor is indexed 
by the major search engines. Please educate myself and the community on the 
nature of our own I.T.U. and it?s proposed role in ?developing a 
globally diverse culture of expertise? (S.G. 3.3).
 
4. Although certainly supportive of S.G. 4.1 (?Encourage engagement with 
the existing Internet governance ecosystem at national, regional and global 
levels?) I question whether the single metric (?number of MOU?s with 
international organizations with mutual recognition of roles with ICANN?) 
in S.G. 4.1 is an exhaustive performance indicator for this S.G. Surely 
engagement must extend beyond formal institution to institution agreements 
and should include engagement and participation by community members, ICANN 
staff and Board in the wider IG world and vice versa. Metrics for this type 
of engagement should be developed and included in S.G. 4.
 
5. While certainly supporting the participation of more governments within 
the GAC (sole metric for S.G. 4.2), I do question why this stakeholder is 
receiving such special consideration in the five year draft plan as opposed 
to other stakeholders. Indeed, much of Strategic Objective 4 (?Promote 
ICANN?s Role and Multistakeholder Approach) is government and IGO centric 
to the exclusion of all other stakeholders. This certainly is not true 
multistakeholderism, a concept ICANN lauds in philosophy but often has 
trouble implementing in practice.
 
I would suggest that ICANN needs to commit itself to helping strengthen the 
commitment of all identifiable stakeholder groups to the global Internet 
ecosystem, and not to give special consideration to a group, governments, 
which are already privileged both in the ICANN governance structure and 
elsewhere.
 
6. S.G. 5.1 commits ICANN to act as a ?steward of the public interest? 
as part of Strategic Objective 5: ? Develop and Implement a Global Public 
Interest Framework Bounded By ICANN?s Mission?. The sole metric of S.G. 
5.1 refers to a ?common consensus based definition of public interest?. 
Does such a definition currently exist? If so, what is it?  If not, how does 
ICANN propose to develop one?
 
 
Thank you for considering these comments.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Edward Morris
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150105/4f6975c6/attachment.html>