<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] FW: Terms of Reference[version 0.2] : Review Working Group
as per recent requests... her is the e-mail i referred to in the
correspondence to yj which was copied to names council
best wishes
ken
> -----Original Message-----
> From: YJ Park [mailto:yjpark@myepark.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 9:55 PM
> To: Ellen Rony; weinberg@mail.msen.com; mpalage@infonetworks.com;
> baf@fausett.com; Kilnam Chon; Roberto Gaetano; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA;
> kent@songbird.com; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law;
> Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com; terastra@terabytz.co.nz; Elisabeth
> Porteneuve; KathrynKL@aol.com
> Cc: S. H. Kyong; Dany Vandromme; Milton Mueller; vany@sdnp.org.pa; Adam
> Peake; YangWoo Ko; Alejandro Pisanty, CUAED + FQ, UNAM; Jonathan Cohen;
> quaynor@ghana.com; Karl Auerbach
> Subject: Terms of Reference[version 0.2] : Review Working Group
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> This is a draft Terms of Reference for Review Working Group,
> which will be presented to Dec 19's NC teleconference after
> balanced amendment process according to your comments
> seeking Names Council's final-final agreement ensuing MdR's
> decision to form a working group which is supposed to review.
>
> Thanking Milton who made me revisie from version 0.1 to 0.2,
> I am also waiting for comments from Kent and Bret and all of you.
>
> Thanks,
> YJ
> ================================
> 2000. 12. 11
> YJ Park
> ================================
> Name of WG : DNSO Review Working Group
> ================================
> Terms of Reference. version 0.2
>
> 1. Objectives of the DNSO Review Working Group
>
> The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
> the performance of ICANN's DNSO and to propose structural
> and procedural changes that will help ICANN's Domain Name
> Supporting Organization fulfill its mission of becoming a bottoms-up
> policy coordination body.
>
> Currently, the DNSO suffers from a lack of trust among participants.
> Skepticism and apathy have developed among many participants
> due to a failure to see past Working Groups' own consensus
> reflected in the later actions of the Names Council or ICANN Board.
>
> The function and purpose of the General Assembly has been called into
> question, and many proposals for a restructuring of the DNSO
> constituencies have been heard.
>
> To carry out its mission, Review Working Group will:
>
> Answer to the Questionnaire of Names Council Review Task Force
> Review DNSO's responsibilities and its performance.
> Develop recommendations for making DNSO function as designed.
>
> 2. Authority - How this WG has been proposed and created.
>
> On July 14 the ICANN Board requested the Names Council
> to submit its report on DNSO review in its Yokohama meeting
> in July 2000. The report was supposed to be due on Oct. 13
> and it has been deferred.
>
> Discussion of a DNSO Review Working Group started in the
> Yokohama NC meeting. See Yokohama minutes,
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000714.NCyokohama-minutes.html
> where a Review Working Group was supposed to be created soon.
> Then it was deferred until the Marina del Rey NC meeting.
> At the Annual ICANN meeting in Marina del Rey in November 2000,
> the formal creation of Review Working Group was agreed upon
> by majority vote of the Names Council.
>
> 3. Procedures and approaches
>
> Review Working Group will explore the concerns listed below
> by online discussion mostly and if it is needed this group will
> organize a face-to-face meeting before or after ICANN meeting.
>
> These are issue list Review WG aims at making recommendations
> after its debates and discussion which will ameliorate DNSO/ICANN.
>
> 1) The role of working groups in the bottoms-up consensus process
> 2) The Names Council's functions and responsibilities
> 3) The General Assembly's function and responsibilities
> 4) Re-examine the relationship between NC and General Assembly
> 5) Relationship between NC and ICANN staff : Better identify
> which issues should begin with in the DNSO and which should
> be handled by the ICANN staff. i.e.
> 6) Define a better procedure for forming working groups and for
> making working groups productive.
> 7) The DNSO constituency Structure : Examine the constituency
> structure and propose amendments to it, if appropriate.
>
> 4. Administrative Information
>
> I. Chair or co-chairs:
> YJ Park: NC
> Co-Chair: To be elected by the WG.
>
> I. Mailing List
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-f/Arc02/maillist.html
> For Subscription request:
>
> Membership:
>
> I. Open Membership
> GA members, 7 Constituencies and At-Large
>
> II. Invited Membership
> Liaison ASO and PSO members
> Board members
>
> Life time of WG:
>
> Dec. 19 - open end : Call for Participation in this WG
> Dec. 19 - Dec. 30 : WG Charter Discussion
> Dec. 31 : WG Charter Finalization
> Dec. 31 - Feb.? : WG's Interim Report - Feb's NC teleconference
> March Melbourne: Submission to NC as WG's position
> nder assumption that it can find consensus.
> [Note] If this fails, it can be defferred until June Stockholm meeting.
>
> Relations between NC Review TF and Review Working Group
>
> In the short term, DNSO Review Committee is expected to review
> the DNSO's responsibilities and its works and to approve(or modify)
> the charter of Working Group F: DNSO Review and get the WG F
> formed and induce a wider debate.
>
> In the long term, DNSO Review Committee will be responsible for
> enhancing more trustworthy working environment in the DNSO
> and for ensuring all the stakeholders' voices should be HEARD.
>
> Reference:
> http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/200078/0849.html
> http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/200078/0614.html
> http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/200078/0777.html
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00041.html
> http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/2000911/0065.html
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000714.NCyokohama-minutes.html
> =======================================
> [End of Message]
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|