Comments

Strategic Objective 2: Enhance Organizational Excellence<br><br> I am reading this Strategic Objective as a Corporate Sustainability. Corporate Sustainability is formed of three pillars 1) Environmental 2) social 3) economic (or governance). The strategy 2.2.2 mainly represents the environmental pillar. 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.2.1 mostly fall under the economic or governance pillar, but the social pillar seems to be missing. Indicators slightly reflect that pillar with the presence of various surveys, but Progress Indicators may not replace a strategy. I tend to think that strategies may need a more conventional articulation.

Comments

Strategic Objective 2: Enhance Organizational Excellence<br> Strategic Goal: Enhance Organizational Excellence<br> Strategy: 2.2.2 Embed ecological responsibility into ICANN’s operations<br><br> The strategy should first establish the target reduction goals and then specify the means by which these goals are to be attained. The UN Global Compact is one of the frameworks that contains the principles used to develop these strategies. In my opinion, ICANN should take advantage of these frameworks and make sure that best practices are followed by supporting such initiatives. The goals here reaching NetZero by 20230 is missing. <br><br> 3 out of 5 progress indicators are surveys. Surveys are necessary, in my opinion, to gauge how a strategy is perceived, but not necessarily the target or goals to attain - for which the strategy has been established. Targets (or goals) shouldn't be determined - at least exclusively - by the survey's findings. Initially, surveys are susceptible to bias and responses may be motivated more by feelings than by logic. What is missing is how these surveys will be used and what progress they reflect.<br><br> Improving the remote participation experience is also a critical component in reaching underrepresented stakeholders and cutting carbon emissions. In order to implement a worthwhile solution, community input is crucial in this important area as well. The progress indicators need to take this into account. Crucial aspects consist in providing equal opportunities to remote participants and on-site participants to speak or to know who is speaking in the room. This could probably added as a specific goal and remote participation can be measured and monitored. <br><br> I would word like the following progress indicators to be added: <ul> <li>ICANN becomes a member or adhere to specific corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility initiatives (such as the United Nations Global Compact for example) and implements à Communication of Progress (CoP). ICANN sustainability report implements a documented scientific approach - including ITU L.1480.</li> <li>ICANN publishes the long term goals and strategy to achieve its target.</li> <li>ICANN significantly reduces its CO2 emissions by 2026 and achieves Net-Zero by 2028.</li> <li>ICANN improves the remote participation experience (both for meetings and collaboration between meetings) by examining how other SDOs handle hybrid participation, and surveying the remote participants.</li> <li>ICANN establishes a Sustainability Advisory Committee responsible for defining a sustainability strategy and communicating sustainability to the community via information sessions.</li> <li>ICANN defines sustainable policies for TLD operators.</li> </ul> <br><br> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br><br> Strategic Objective: Strengthen the Security of the Internet’s Unique Identifier Systems<br> Strategic Goal: 4.1 Strengthen Partnerships with Relevant Stakeholders to Reinforce the Shared Responsibility of Ensuring Secure and Stable Internet’s Unique Identifier Systems.<br> Strategy: 4.1.2 Identify and mitigate security threats to the Internet’s unique identifier systems.<br><br> I concur that there is a strategic risk in undermining DNS credibility. I agree that compromising DNS credibility has a strategic risk. While there could be a number of reasons for this, I think one of the most important ones is to allow DNS data to offer verifiable proof that it truly originated in the zone from which it thinks it did [1]. However, I'm not reading the objectives 4.1.2 and possibly 4.13 as identifying and addressing that specific problem.<br><br> I would want to bring up the topics of "data integrity protection" and "data origin authentication" in 4.1.2 specifically as follows:<br> Make that the DNS client can authenticate and verify the integrity of the DNS data that the DNS system has delivered. <br><br> I would like the following to be stated clearly in the Progress Indicators: <ul> <li>Mechanisms that guarantee data authenticity are positioned, surveyed, and gaps identified. </li> <li>Like M4/M5, all mechanisms guaranteeing the authenticity of DNS data are tracked [2][3] and show a notable increase in their popularity.</li> </ul> <br><br> [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dnssec-what-is-it-why-important-2019-03-05-en/ <br> [2] https://ithi.research.icann.org/graph-m4.html <br> [3] https://ithi.research.icann.org/graph-m5.html <br>

Comments

Strategic Objective 2: Enhance Organizational Excellence<br> Strategic Goal: Enhance Organizational Excellence<br> Strategy: 2.2.2 Embed ecological responsibility into ICANN’s operations.<br><br> I would word like the following risk to be added: Surveys are likely to provide biased and subjective results

Comments

Regarding Strategic Objective 1: """Evolve and Promote ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model to Sustain Its Inclusive Internet Governance Model""" <br> Strategic Goal: 1.1 Ensure Inclusive Stakeholder Representation and Integrated Collaboration, Strategy: 1.1.1 Integrate new stakeholders into ICANN community groups as needed.<br><br> I agree with the approach as essential to meet the Strategic Goal. However, the progress indicators should provide guarantee that the target is being measured effectively as they seem to undermine the potential bias.<br><br> The progress indicator: **Barriers to participation are identified and addressed** likely needs refinement to achieve the purpose it seeks to achieve. The challenge is to overcome the barriers of shareholders who are unrepresented or unable to fully participate in ICANN. To be accurately identified, these barriers must be identified by these specific communities, which remains challenging as these communities are under-represented or underrepresented.<br><br> I would like the progress indicator to be rephrased as follows:<br> The barrier to non-participation is assessed based on a diverse and large pool of participants who participate only partially or on a limited basis in on-site meetings, as well as potential stakeholders who do not participate in an ICANN. <br><br> I would like the following risk to be mentioned:<br> Shareholder representation and integrated collaboration are influenced by the participant pool on which the analysis is based. Nonrepresentation must be based on communities that are not well represented.

Comments

Regarding Strategic Objective 1: """Evolve and Promote ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model to Sustain Its Inclusive Internet Governance Model"""<br> Strategic Goal: 1.1 Ensure Inclusive Stakeholder Representation and Integrated Collaboration.<br> Strategy: 1.1.1 Integrate new stakeholders into ICANN community groups as needed.<br> The related items are:<br> <ul> <li>Develop procedures to identify gaps in stakeholder representation. Evolve the procedure as needed over time.</li> <li>Develop à framework or mechanism to address gaps in stakeholder representation.</li> </ul> The text could be acceptable, though it is unclear what procedures will consist of and likely put too much emphasis on procedural aspects instead of the content, target or goal to achieve.<br><br> I believe we primarily need an analysis or a study - rather than a procedure - of the current stakeholders representation. This analysis/study will identify gaps which will be addressed as well as metrics to measure the representation. The analysis /study will be conducted regularly over time and likely leverage the previous analysis and positioning itself toward the previous analysis.<br><br> <br><br> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br><br> Strategic Objective: Strengthen the Security of the Internet’s Unique Identifier Systems<br> Strategic Goal: 4.1 Strengthen Partnerships with Relevant Stakeholders to Reinforce the Shared Responsibility of Ensuring Secure and Stable Internet’s Unique Identifier Systems.<br> Strategy: 4.1.2 Identify and mitigate security threats to the Internet’s unique identifier systems.<br><br> Most actions are delegated to the Knowledge-sharing and Instantiation Norms for DNS and Naming Security (KINDNS) initiative. If the web site is https://kindns.org/, the web site was not reachable at least on September 15 with a TLS certificate expired on September 12 2024. The most recent news I can find as of September 2024 is a webinar on August 2023. The number of participants is very limited. So the impression left by the web site I saw is that the initiative is not active. I can only agree that high attention is needed to that effort. <br><br> I have not seen the guidelines for the DNS client. I think this aspect is missing. I agree with mandating DNSSEC to resolver, but I suspect more guidelines are needed to have it effectively activated. I have not found them on the web site - though I might have missed them. More emphasize need to be put on DNSSEC in my opinion. That said, the web site seems to head in the right direction.