[council] Re: Starting point: DNSO WG Organizing Principles

["Dr. Victoria Carrington" <drvcarrington@echelon.ca>]

Dear Bill:

I have the following comments about your draft DNSO WG Organizing Principles.


> > it probably makes sense, if possible, to provide for open participation
> and a public archive of our discussions on this matter. Javier, can you
> check with Elisabeth and see we can add that to her (growing) list of
> tasks? Thanks.
>

Good idea.


> 1. Open and transparent process and procedures, with publicly available
> lists, discussions, etc. No closed meetings.

I agree.


> 2. Procedures should prevent capture.

I agree.


> 3. WGs should set their own agendas, timetables, and develop their charter
> - based on but not driven by the original workgroup's source or point of
> creation (be it a constituency or the GA). Certainly, we all agree it is
> not the NC's job to create topics for the WGs - per the ICANN bylaws.

Generally, I agree.


> 4. WGs pick their own chairs and subgroups from among the participants - no
> assignments by NC of any sort.

I agree in part.  While I think it is probably generally a reasonable idea that
WG's pick their own chairs and sub-groups from among their participants, I do not
think there should be a prohibition for the NC doing so.  I think the
circumstances should dictate what is appropriate, with the general assumption
being that it will generally be as you suggest.



> 5. WGs are open to all, either to be members or to participate in discussions.

Again, I agree in principle, but it must be always subject to the WG deciding that
either a particular individual, or the numbers in total wanting to work, or the
time limit, or the nature of the work, or some other factor may from time to time
require that this general rule be set aside, or at least not followed in full.



> 6. Full disclosure by "members" of WGs as to any real or perceived
> conflicts of interest relating to the topic under consideration.

I cannot disagree with the principle, but I think that coming up with a method for
accomplishing it may be tricky.



> 7. Simple process for participation (no phone conferences) - email driven,
> with the provision for relatively long time periods for email discussion,
> to facilitate participation by participants in developing nations with part
> time Internet connections, minimal English language skills, etc.

Again, I agree in principle, but I do not think that we should say "no phone
conferences", and while "relatively long time periods" may be desirable in some
instances, they may not be practicable in others.  Perhaps  this should not be
expressed as dicta or principles, but as a preferred approach in given situations
in any particular WG.



> 8. WGs goals are to build consensus, not a "voting" process. Near-tie
> "votes" are not consensus...etc.

I think I agree, but I am not sure how this can be expressed as a guideline.
There may well have to be some occasions where an old-fashioned vote will have to
be taken, although in principle, I agree that what we are charged with is building
consensus, i.e. bottom up, not top down.  I think there needs to be at least some
flexibility in a number of rules you are proposing, such as this one - i.e., I
think that not everything you propose should be expressed as a principle, but as
an approach to be taken in given circumstances - I apologize, but the lawyer in me
can't help but take into account more than one side of an issue.



> 9. WGs need participation by each constituency. (per bylaws)

I agree.



> 10. WGs will take no action that will damage or disenfranchise minority
> interests. (per bylaws)

I agree, but think it will be quite difficult to define a procedure whereby it can
be accomplished.



> 11. All meetings, discussion, etc. are open for public view of some sort.

I agree, as a principle, subject to at least the possibility of the occasional
meeting that is not open.  I apologize, but my inclination and all my voting has
been for open meetings, but that does not mean that there will never be a
situation where a closed meeting could not be appropriate.


> 12. PLEASE ADD MORE HERE.
>
> Eva said:
>
> A very good start. I would like to add some points
>
> 13. A new WG should be announced on the DNSO website where all the
> information about how to subscribe to mailings lists, the charter agenda etc
> is publicly available.

I agree.



> 14 A question that has to be addressed is the procedure on how to start a
> new WG. Where is the decision to be taken and what kind of preparation in
> beforehand is needed? To me the decision should be made by the DNSO GA,
> all participants should have had a possibility to see the proposed charter
> at least one week before the decision is to be taken and the proposal
> should be publicly available.
> There should also be a possibility to add issues to be studied by the WG at
> the same time as the decision is made. The individuals writing the proposal
> might have foreseen or forgotten a very important question.

I believe this needs discussion, although I have no firm opinion at this time.


> 15 Then there is the question on when a result from a WG is ready to be
> taken as a proposal to ICANN. That has, in my mind, to be a consensus
> process put in place for that. The result from a WG should be out on a
> public hearing in all the constituencies and they should have a fair chance
> to read through the proposal and give comments on it. And that can include
> a referral of the job back to the WG in order for them to look at one or
> more issues more properly.

Again, as a principle, it sounds good, but I think it needs to be much more
clearly defined, otherwise it can be a significant hindrance to the WG completing
its job in a timely and independent fashion.  It is a difficult balance.


> 16 Another question is whether a result from a working group needs to go to
> ICANN. Letīs say that there is a WG on ethics for ccTLD:s (donīt know if it
> is relevant or not but, just as an example). There is a result which is
> suitable for all constituencies, maybe it is only the ccTLD:s that are
> interested. The ccTLD:s says amongst themselves - yes letīs go for this, we
> implement it in our organizations. Does such a decision need to be put to
> ICANN? I would prefer to say no.
> Some results though there is a clear need to approach ICANN with.

A good point, but I agree it needs some thought and discussion.


> 17 Another question is when ICANN asks us to create a WG for a special
> issue (like WG A). Shouldn't there be a mechanism to say when DNSO can give
> a result back to ICANN instead of ICANN dictating? The result has to be a
> consensus and that takes some time to get as all involved need to have a
> fair chance to read and comment before consensus is reached.

Again, a good principle, and having just chaired WG-A, I certainly have a question
in my mind whether there is consensus.  But then again, circumstances sometimes
require action in a given time frame in a manner that does not conform to
generally accepted and desired principles.  We are better off enunciating the
general principles and the circumstances in which an exception can be invoked.


> 18 We have to mention time frames for hearings, announcements before
> creating, decision etc. And for the moment I donīt have a clue about them.
> I just know that the proposed time scale in WG C is far to fast/short to be
> able to create a consensus.

I think that it is very difficult to determine in advance what a reasonable time
frame is for obtaining consensus on any given question.  There are simply too many
hypotheticals and variables.  We have to count on the WG's and those considering
their work to take into account and conform to the guidelines as much as possible.



> 19 It would be very nice if we succeed in writing down the procedure and
> then try to work this document through the process we are trying. It will
> have the positive effect of being open and we can also see where the theory
> doesnīt work in practise and have a opportunity to change it immediately.

I agree.

I look forward to the comments of other NC members.


--
Shapiro Cohen
Group of Intellectual Property Practices
Ottawa, Canada

Telephone: (613)232-5300
Facsimile: (613) 563-9231
________________________________________________________________________

This correspondence is intended for the person to whom it is addressed
and contains information that is confidential, and/or privileged to the
named recipient, and may be proprietary in nature. It is not to be used
by any other person and/or organization.  If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect)
and/or return e-mail.