Two contributions from ETSI in HTML

[azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es]

Dear Martin, dear PSO PC colleagues,

I was not aware that MS Word format was a problem for any of us. It is the
standard format within ETSI for working documents. Please find enclosed the
2 contributions in HTML format.

I understand your concerns about the short available time due to the
Christmas period but the deadline of 10th January was fixed by Mr Lynn and
it has taken some time to prepare the contributions and to have them
aproved within ETSI. They are not very long anyhow.

Kind regards,
Azucena
(See attached file: ETSI contribution to ICANN restructuring in html.htm)
(See attached file: ETSI recommendations to ICANN Budget 2002-2003 in
html.htm)(See attached file: Image3.gif)






Martin Duerst <duerst@W3.ORG>@pso.icann.org con fecha 21/12/2001 09:53:01

Por favor, responda a Martin Duerst <duerst@W3.ORG>

Enviado por:   owner-pso-pc@pso.icann.org


Destinatarios: Azucena Hernandez Perez/INFR/TESA@Telefonica,
      pso-pc@ties.itu.ch
CC:
Asunto:   Re: Two contributions from ETSI


Dear Azuncena,

Just some initial comments:

- I think the time for other PSO PC members to comment on your
   proposals is quite limited given the holidays.

- Can I very strongly suggest that we use a format that is
   usable on a wide variety of platforms? I think if we limit
   ourselves to plain text, (x)html, and pdf, we have a variety
   of choices and make sure that everybody can look at the
   documents without problems.

Regards,   Martin.

At 09:18 01/12/21 +0100, azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es wrote:

>Dear PSO PC colleagues,
>
>As announced in our last teleconference, ETSI has prepared the enclosed
>contributions, one as an input to the ICANN budget debate and the other
one
>to the ICANN restructuring activity.
>
>Your comments and views are welcomed. Should these documents have support
>from other PSO PC members, fine, otherwise, ETSI would like to get them
>sent by Vlad to the ICANN appropriate person within the deadline of 10th
>January 2002 as contributions from ETSI.
>
>I take the opportunity to wish you all Merry Christmas and all the best
for
>2003.
>Kind regards,
>Azucena
>(See attached file: ETSI recommendations to ICANN Budget
2002-2003.doc)(See
>attached file: ETSI contribution to ICANN restructuring.doc)
>*********************************************************
>Azucena Hernandez
>Telefonica de Espa
>  Desarrollo de Red
>Tel: +34 91 5846842
>Fax: +34 91 5846843
>GSM: +34 609425506
>E-Mail: azucena.hernandezperez@telefonica.es
>***********************************************************

Title: ETSI comments on ICANN restructuring

14.12.2001

ETSI contribution on ICANN restructuring

ETSI supports the present general structure of ICANN, which includes:

• a Board of Directors holding the highest decision power
• a manageable number of Supporting Organizations (e.g. up to 6)
• an unlimited number of advisory committees, task groups,.......either permanent or temporary as required.
• a CEO and related staff

With regards to the ICANN Board, ETSI considers:

• their members should be elected by the Supporting Organizations
• each Supporting Organization should have the same number of seats in the Board
• the period of service of the Board members should be 3 years with one further consecutive term only
• the size of the Board should be a number between 12 and 18 seats (flexible according to the number of Supporting Organizations)

With regards to the Supporting Organizations, ETSI considers that they are the backbone of the work in ICANN.

Their task must therefore be to comment and advise the ICANN Board and other supporting organisations in all the aspects related to the mission, scope and activities of the ICANN as much as to make public opinions and positions in all Internet related issues somehow related to the ICANN scope, for the benefit and knowledge of the ICANN community. This public positions may include comments, advises and liaisons to Internet related organizations inside or outside the ICANN structure, such as IETF, W3C, ISOC, IPv6 Forum,.......

Due to the focal role of the Supporting Organisations and since they represent the various interest groups of the internet players , namely users , operators, service providers, content providers, institutions etc. their number and set up must be carefully balanced.

ETSI considers that a maximum number of 6 SOs is a reasonable picture for the medium/long term and therefore, ETSI sees no problem in the launch of two new SOs to be added to the three presently active if the ICANN community so wishes. These two new SOs should be:

• ALSO (At Large Supporting Organization) to represent the Internet Users
• ccTLD SO to specifically address the ccTLD Registries if it is demonstrated that they can not be dealt with by the existing DNSO.

If these two new SOs are created, then each should designate 3 members to the ICANN Board in equal basis to the three existing SOs.

ETSI is aware of the special nature of the ALSO and therefore is able to accept an extension of the number of seats in the ICANN Board elected by ALSO to a maximum of 6 providing that:

• this extension is considered temporary
• the extension is cancelled if a 6^th SO needs to be launched in order to keep the number of Board members up to 18.

Regarding the internal structure of ALSO, its membership and voting procedures, ETSI's views are as follows:

• the main method to become member of ALSO should require to be an individual member of an existing recognised national, regional or international User Association not linked to commercial businesses.
• alternative methods maybe accepted on a case by case basis if no User Associations are established in the geographical area of the interested potential ALSO member
• candidates to hold positions, either in the ALSO Council or in the ICANN Board representing ALSO, should be respectable individuals having no criminal register and no relation to any criminal organisation under the law of the country/region they register for.
• voting procedures should ensure that every ALSO member can vote but only once.

With regards to the ICANN Advisory Committees, Task Groups, ....., ETSI supports its existence as a tool to get proper input from specific communities (eg. Governments in GAC) and to address identified urgent tasks (e.g. New TLDs, IDN, ....). ETSI is particularly supportive of those special committees dealing with matters with technical impact such as the IDN. Those committees should work in close co-operation with the related Supporting Organizations.

As for the ICANN Working Procedures, ETSI considers:

• the present frequency of ICANN meetings (3 per year) should be kept
• the present policy of holding ICANN meetings in different regions by rotation should be kept
• the possibility of organising ICANN meetings in a distributed manner with meeting rooms in the 5 regions all connected by high quality videoconference should be explored in order to facilitate the participation of the Internet community at the minimum cost.
• the present use of English as the working language of ICANN should be kept. The provision of translation facilities either in meetings or in documents, website,....should be allowed providing that its associated costs are not covered by ICANN budget but by direct funding of the interested communities.

Finally and with regards to the CEO and ICANN staff, ETSI supports the following principles:

• the ICANN staff should consist of highly qualified individuals within a dynamic and low hierarchical internal structure with the minimum required size,
• ICANN staff should increase the automation of activities.
• ICANN staff should consist of individuals with different nationalities

Title:

14/12/01

Contribution from ETSI

Thoughts and recommendations regarding ICANN's budget for the financial year 2002-2003

ETSI has analysed the set of priorities agreed by the ICANN community for the present financial year together with the identified needs for next financial year.

Being a member organisation of the PSO and therefore focussed on the production of technical standards, ETSI recommends that higher priority is given to those issues closer related to a better technical performance of Internet.

As for the specific funding of the PSO, ETSI supports the present arrangements of not needing any specific budget from ICANN. The 4 member organizations of the PSO will keep funding the PSO activities during the next financial year 2002-2003 as it has been done in the previous ones.

Regarding the other set of activities already identified by the ICANN CEO, ETSI has designated a label of low, medium, high priority besides each of them, as follows:

ACTIVITY	PRIORITY
Continue to improve IANA operations and technical services	High
Implementation of whatever the outcome may be of the deliberations on the At Large study. Regardless of the approach chosen, there will likely be substantial demands on staff and other resources to implement the outcome.	Low
Support of whatever the outcome may be of the recommendations of the IDN Committee. Also to the extent the Committee’s deliberations reach into next fiscal year, there will be the continuing need to provide staff support to the Committee.	Medium
Increased technical expenditures to support improved security for ICANN’s systems and facilities.	High
Implement any recommendations arising out of the overall increased focus on security arising out of the Marina del Rey security meeting and the post September 11 events.	Medium
Improved monitoring and support of contract agreements and new gTLDs. Although, except for the ccTLD agreements, most of the agreements envisaged by the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce will shortly be in place, the existence of these agreements place considerable burden on the need for monitoring and compliance capabilities. Each of these agreements places burdens in this regard. ICANN is seriously under-resourced in this regard. It is not realistic to assume that ICANN can fulfill its responsibilities within the current resource framework.	High
Support of evaluation and monitoring of new gTLDs to the extent such evaluation exceeds the balance of funds available from this activity. This is separate from the need for contract monitoring and compliance.	Medium
Changes in required support for other legal expenditures beyond contract monitoring and compliance. As indicated above, most of the agreements envisaged by the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce should have been completed and signed, except for most ccTLD agreements. The pace at which new ccTLD agreements will be signed is still uncertain. The demands of a possible round (or rounds) of new gTLDs are also unknown, although the initial legal effort required for each new agreement should be less since the basic framework has now been established. Litigation is always unpredictable.	Medium
Beyond the need for continuing monitoring and compliance, we expect that the progress already made on the tasks set in ICANN's Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce will allow us to focus our energies more intensely on our core technical coordination agenda. The budgetary implications of this, however, are unclear at this stage, other than the items reflected in the above.	Low

Image3.gif