Re: [council] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Hello Erica,

> Is this supposed to be the final report of the WG?

As you read, this is January 15th Report.

Greg Burton, newly elected Co-Chair by WG-Review
is supposed to come up with Feb. 20 Report.

YJ

> erica
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>
> To: <nc-review@dnso.org>
> Cc: "vint cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>; <Amadeu@nominalia.com>;
<ivanmc@akwan.com>;
> <phil.davidson@bt.com>; <f.fitzsimmons@att.net>;
<ken.fockler@sympatico.ca>;
> <mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com>; <hans@icann.org>; "S. H. Kyong"
> <shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr>; <andy@ccc.de>; <junsec@wide.ad.jp>;
> <quaynor@ghana.com>; <roberts@icann.org>; <helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de>;
> <linda@icann.org>; <council@dnso.org>; "Alejandro Pisanty, CUAED + FQ,
UNAM"
> <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>; "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>; "Jonathan
> Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:23 AM
> Subject: [council] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I
>
>
> > ==========================================
> > 2001.1.15 Report of ICANN DNSO Working Group Review
> > ==========================================
> >
> > To     : Review Task Force/ Names Council
> > Cc     : Names Council of Domain Names Supporting Organization
> >            The Board of Directors, ICANN
> > From : YJ Park, Working Group Review Chair
> >            Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
> > Date  : 2001. 1. 15. Monday
> >
> > Appreciating Names Council collegues who have agreed to form Working
> > Group Review on December 19 during NC teleconferece after almost five
> > months' discussion on DNSO Review, I would like to extend my hearty
> > gratitude for proactive cooperation especially to current NC Chair,
> > Ken Stubbs, new NC Chair-designate, Philip Sheppard, NC Review Task
> > Force Chair, Theresa Swinehart and Vice President of ICANN, Louis Tuton
> > who sent Press Release to "icann-announce" list (4900+ recipients) and
> > various relevant lists in the DNSO on Dec 22 and Dec 23.
> >
> > Even though I have been designated as Chair of WG Review, there are many
> > folks whose credit should be recognized in forming WG Review. First, GA
> > Chair,
> > Roberto Gaetano, as one of Review TF members, who has consistantly
brought
> > this issue to both Review TF and GA since Yokohama meeting, Elisabeth
> > Porteneuv,
> > initially as DNSO Secretariat and later as NC member of Review TF, Peter
> de
> > Blanc, Dany Vandromme who have supported this group until this group was
> > formed.
> >
> > For the last, I owe gratefulness to Working Group Review members who
have
> > traded off between their willingness to review DNSO with sincerity and
> their
> > Christmas Holiday and New Year Holiday due to pressed time given by NC's
> > decision. Therefore, Working Group Review could have only 24 working
days
> > (From Dec. 23 to Jan 15) including Christmas and New Year Day.
Especially,
> > those who have devoted themselves to rendering WG Review move forward
> > such as Joop Teernstra, Review WG Co-Chair Election Administrator, Greg
> > Burton, David Farrar, Jefsey Morfin and Sotiris Sotiropoulos who have
run
> > for this election.
> >
> > This is Working Group Review's status report as of Jaunary 15th as
> requested
> > by NC on 2000. Dec. NC's teleconference. The full Working Group's report
> > is going to be submitted on February 20 which is awaiting NC's another
> > friendly
> > decision this coming January's teleconference on 24th.
> >
> > Therefore, it would be great chance for Names Council to invite newly
> > elected
> > WG Review Co-Chair, Greg Burton, to NC's January teleconference to
listen
> > to its further schedule and plan for Feb. 20's report during its topic.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Table of Content
> >
> > 1. Summary
> >
> >     1. 1. Working Group Review's History
> >     1. 2. Issues to be Addressed
> >     1. 3. WG Review's Working Day-Extention Requested
> >     1. 4. Ongoing Intensive Discussion
> >
> > 2. Is DNSO Well-Formed, Well-Functioned?
> >
> >     2. 1. What is the Role of DNSO?
> >     2. 2. DNSO Needs Reformation.
> >     2. 3. Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced?
> >     2. 4. New Constituency
> >     2. 5. Consensus, is measurable?
> >     2. 6. The Relations between Funding and Rights to Say
> >
> > 3. Proposal to Names Council's Review Task Force
> >
> >     3. 1. To Set Up Procedure within the Task Force is Urgent.
> >     3. 2. Consensus-Building Process among Review TF is also Needed.
> >     3. 3. Review TF's Position is to Encompass WG Review's Consensus.
> >
> > 4. Proposal to Names Council
> >
> >     4. 1. NC, Is it Consensus-Building Lubricant or Blockage?
> >     4. 2. To Extend WG Review's Working Days
> >     4. 3. Specified DNSO WG-Reviews are to be Formed.
> >         - DNSO without Constituency Proposal
> >         - DNSO with Established Procedure to Create New Constituencies
> >         - DNSO Budget Proposal
> >
> > 5. Outlook of Review WG from now on
> >
> >     5. 1. Future Timetable for Review WG after Jan. 15
> >     5. 2. First Review WG Physical Meeting in Melbourne ICANN meeting
> >     5. 3. Second Review WG Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 1. Summary
> >
> > 1. 1. Review WG's History
> >
> > The whole picture is well-described in [Appendix 17] provided by
> > DNSO secretariat as of January 14. Therefore, Review WG's progress
> > delineates its path from Dec 23 to date. Please, refer to [Appendix 10].
> >
> > 1. 2. Issues to be Addressed
> >
> > In proceeding this kind of consensus-building process through a working
> > group model among those who have different background including
> > different level of understanding on the issues, different mother tongue,
> > different culture which finally lead to different way of communication
> > shows how challanging it is to achieve "consensus" after hammering out
> > its cons and pros.
> >
> > Firstly, the qualification or role of WG Chair, consensus-training
> proposal
> > has been addressed in the group which has been stressed to manage 60
> > or so messages a day which made them feel they are in the middle of the
> > wilderness and this can be a valuable issue people have to look into
with
> > seriousness not to repeat further regrets. This concern is well-noted in
> > [Appendix 20] and [Appendix 21].
> >
> > However, as untrained and uneducated on consensus-building process
> > and non-native English speaker, being DNSO Review WG chair reminds
> > me how ICANN can implement its true-sense "geographycal diversity".
> > It is a pity to witness such concept used to strengthen its own
> legitimacy.
> >
> > Secondly, WG's legitimacy or mandate should be set with firmness along
> > with mutual trust between NC and WG. Out of lack of such trust, many
> > WG members from time to time go back to cynical nihilism which drives
> > them to form another faction in the group, which distracted the group's
> > whole effort to fumble through the goal in vain.
> >
> > Thirdly, the willingness to cooperate or achieve is far most important.
> > Even though there is well-articulated rules are presented, if people
don't
> > respect them, it is out of use. Therefore, community oversight can be
> > its initial alternative to redress such intentional destruction just
like
> > primitive age, which is to be developed in the form of cyberlaw.
> >
> > 1. 3. WG Review's Working Day-Extention Requested
> >
> > What is the purpose of creating DNSO WG Review? WG members are
> > supposed to present their own recommendation or position paper after
> > going through its own independent consensus-building process which
> > can be a criteria NC can refer to in its recommendation to the Board.
> >
> > WG Review has kicked off since Dec 23rd and listed up various issues
> > which should be more specified and needs focal point from now on.
> > WG Review just passed by its first stage by struggling from issue
finding.
> >
> > From now until Feb. 20 will be very challenging schedule for WG
> > Review to come up with measurable consensus position to the NC. It is
> > still very difficult to figure out why the whole process of DNSO review
> > should be wrapped up until Melbourne meeting.
> >
> > It is appropriate for every process in the DNSO including even working
> > group to be reviewed regularly by people not by any clique inside DNSO.
> > Otherwise, one-shot window display review will smear itself at the end.
> >
> > 1. 4. Ongoing Intensive Discussion
> >
> > With WG Review's own chair elected by WG members, a full list of
> > issues accompanied by visible poll result, WG Review is expected
> > to present its report to the NC on Feb 20.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > 2. Is DNSO Well-Formed, Well-Functioned?
> >
> > 2. 1. What is the Role of DNSO?
> >
> > After 20 months' DNSO Testbed since Berlin ICANN meeting in 1999 May,
> > many people have been wondering what is the role of DNSO in the ICANN?
> > There have been five Working Group processes which have made WG members
> > feel useless in the consensus building process and demotivated by the
fact
> > that Name Council is not ready to perform its designated
responsibilities
> > described in the ICANN bylaws.
> >
> > This deep dissappointment has been well expressed by one of former
> > WG Chairs, Jonathan Weinberg's report.[Appendix 2]
> >
> > 2. 2. DNSO Needs Reformation.
> >
> > NC should pay attention to the poll result done by WG Review that 97 %
> > people responded YES. [Appendix 1] Some including one of At-Large Board
> > Director, Karl Auerbach recommend to eliminate "Constituency" structure
> > itself, which has not been working out in the DNSO.[Appendix 4]
> >
> > However, WG Review has to make various approaches to current DNSO
> structure
> > due to the NCRTF's questionare which has forced WG members to answer to
> the
> > questions and to make WG members face the current issues which can be
> solved
> > by Clean Sheet approach from WG members' perspective.
> >
> > Therefore, as some complained, to discuss almost more than 15 different
> > topics at the same time have caused WG members lots of confusion and
> missing
> > focal point from time to time, which I feel sorry for as designated
Chair
> of
> > WG Review by NC.
> >
> > 2. 3. Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced?
> >
> > Many point out that the current constituency structure is imbalanced.
This
> > concern is well noted in Milton Mueller's note # 2 [Appendix 6]. To heal
> > this imbalance, WG members suggested several constituency models such as
> > IDNH/O or Small Business Constituency, or TM owners Constituency etc.
> >
> > 2. 4. New Constituency
> >
> > The most visible and audible demand from WG Review apart from "Drop the
> > Constituencies" is to recognize "Individual Domain Name Holders/Owners"
in
> > the Internet Policy-making process since its beginning. There have been
> > counterargument that individuals can be represented through At-Large
which
> > will result in duplicated representation in the ICANN.
> >
> > However, Karl Auerbach's comment on this issue has some valid points,
too.
> >
> >     "If the logic that is being used to block the individual domain
> >      name holders constituency were applied to the other constituencies
> they
> >      too would have to be dissolved because they are, under the rubric
of
> >      that logic, represented via the at-large."
> >
> > In addition to such requests, from its early stage WG members including
> Bret
> > Fausset, the current WG D Chair together with Theresa Swinehart,
discussed
> > the formal procedure to set up new constituencies. Here is Bret
Fausset's
> > message which emphasized on setting up due procedure for new
> constituencies
> > with formality. [Appendix 7]
> >
> > 2. 5. Consensus Is Measurable in the Decision-Making Process?
> >
> > And then some may ask how people are sure of such demand can be called
> > "consensus" which needs proper action by Names Council and finally
Board.
> > What does "rough consensus" mean by exactly?
> >
> > Therefore, WG members decided to make analysis on "Consensus" in itself
> > whose result is expected to be out in their first report on Feb. 20.
> >
> > 2. 6. The Relations between Funding and Rights to Say
> >
> > This issue sounds hot potato which was not directly mentioned in the
> > questionaire and was not still included specific issues of WG members'
own
> > list. However, this is going to be undetachable issue whenever Names
> > Council discusses DNSO Budget and possibly ICANN Budget.
> >
> > Therefore, it would be also valuable for WG members to come up with
> workable
> > financial solution after their first issue-cracking stage. Regarding its
> > methodolgy in Budget process, the necessity of more planned, more
> > transparent and more detailed document is well-described in
> registrar.com's
> > position paper. [Appendix 9]
> >
> > 3. Proposal to Review Task Force
> >
> > 3. 1. To Set Up Procedure within the Task Force is Urgent.
> >
> > As member of Review TF, the decison or request of Review TF comes
> > in the name of Review TF from Chair prior to the consultation with
> > members of Review TF reminds this group that we need procrdure in place,
> > first. Otherwise, this group can get nowhere. To do that end, WG D is to
> > present its final report to the NC as soon as possible.
> >
> > To operate this premature decision-making process in the NC without its
> > well-established set of rules might cause more serious malpractice.
> > Therefore, to propose a working model to the NC is more important than
> > to present the recommendations on DNSO Review to the Board at this
> > juncture.
> >
> > 3. 2. Consensus-Building Process Among Review TF is also Needed.
> >
> > As soon as WG Review report is delivered to Review TF(on Feb. 20),
> > Review TF members are expected to participate in Review TF's report
which
> > should outline TF members' consensus. To that end, Chair is expected to
> > make every effort in consulting with every member of Review TF since
this
> is
> > small group composed of seven NC representatives from each constituency,
> > GA Chair and several observers.
> >
> > Therefore, it is reasonable for Review TF to publish its interim report
to
> > the Board when WG Review group can provide its position paper.
> > Furthermore, to make the Review TF report more agreeable, Review TF
> > is to have a teleconference to reach its own consensus before its
> > finalization.
> >
> > 3. 3. Review TF's Position is to Encompass WG Review's Consensus.
> >
> > Review TF welcomes any input from both inside and outside DNSO.
> > However, not to be misled by any interest group, it is to have a session
> > to validate each constituency's position paper or contribution paper
> > by members of Review TF.
> >
> > Every constituency paper is needed to show how many members
> > have participated in DNSO Review discussion through its own mailing
> > list and and have voted on that matter together with the number of vote
> > result. Otherwise, it is difficult to be viewed as constituency
position.
> >
> > When Review TF report is out, the report should be vetted by members
> > of Review TF. Otherwise, it cannot be recognized as Review TF report.
> > It is an individual's position paper.
> >
> > 4. Proposal to Names Council
> >
> > 4. 1. NC, whether it is Consensus-Building Lubricant or not?
> >
> > Even though it has been difficult to define what "consensus" is, this
> group
> > has debated the role of NC in the consensus-building process. As shown
in
> > [Appendix 19], NC is seen as constituted is an unnecessary structural
> > impediment to consensus. On the other hand, some parties still give
> weights
> > to NC that NC should manage the consensus process.[Appendix 3]
> >
> > 4. 2. To Extend WG Review's Working Days
> >
> > Despite that fact that  NC itself didn't self-clarify what NC's role
> should
> > be in this consensus-building process, NC as Consensus-Catalyst as it
> > has been presumed in the DNSO, people expect NC is ready to reconsider
> > extending Review WG's working days which has been requested by WG
> > members through many channels.
> >
> > Without substantial consensus-building process efforts before NC, NC's
> > recommendation to the Board is going to be empty voices which have no
> > legitimacy nor mandate.
> >
> > Please, let WG Review go on its unfinished mission.
> >
> > 4. 3. Specified DNSO Review-WGs are to be Formed.
> >
> > As Kent Crispin pointed out clarity in his DNSO Review Comment,
> > the most effective way of WG operation is to let WG be as focused as
> > possible. Therefore, DNSO Review WG is recommened to be divided
> > into three groups each of which is supposed to come up with its own
> > recommendation to the NC.
> >
> >         - DNSO without Constituency Proposal
> >         - DNSO with Established Procedure to Create New Constituencies
> >         - DNSO Budget Proposal
> >
> > 5. Outlook of Review WG from now on
> >
> > 5. 1. Future Timetable for Review WG after Jan. 15
> >
> > ========================================
> > Feb 9 - 14.  Review WG Position Paper Submission
> > Feb 14 - 19 Review WG Position Paper Comment Period.
> > Feb 20         Review WG Position Paper Delivered to NC
> > ========================================
> >
> > 5. 2. First WG Review's Physical Meeting in Melbourne ICANN meeting
> >
> > Call by WG Co-Chair, Greg Burton.
> > Date: March. 9, Friday or 10, Saturday
> >
> > 5. 3. Second WG Review's Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting
> >
> > Call by WG Co-Chair, Greg Burton.
> > Date: June [TBD]
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Appendices
> >
> > [Appendix 1] Various Poll Result Surveyed by Review WGs
> > [Appendix 2] Jonathan Weinberg's Comment on DNSO Review
> > [Appendix 3] Kent Crispin's Comment on DNSO Review
> > [Appendix 4] Karl Auerbach's Comment on Constituency
> > [Apeendix 5] Joanna Lane's Proposal of IDNH Membership Criteria
> > [Appendix 6] Milton Mueller's Comment on DNSO Review
> > [Appendix 7] Bret Fausset's Proposal to Create New Constituecny
Procedure
> > [Appendix 8] Adam Peake's Report on NCC's Outreach Status
> > [Appendix 9] registrar.com's Position on DNSO Quality
> > [Appendix 10] Review WG's Chronology from Dec 23 through Jan. 15
> > [Appendix 11] Review WG's Members and its Details
> > [Appendix 12] Review WG's Co-Chair Election Details
> > [Appendix 13] List of Issues
> >                   I.   Review WG's Charter Finalization
> >                   II.  Ten Topics by NCRTF and Five Issues by Review WG
> >                   III. Rod Dixon's Issue List Suggested
> > [Appendix 14] Statistics on Email list
> > [Appendix 15] Dany Younger's "Procedure to Establish Consensus"
> > [Appendix 16] Joop Teernstra's Comment on At-Large and Individual
> >                        Domain Name Owners constituency
> > [Appendix 17] DNSO Working Group Review - History in the Making
> >                        (DNSO Secretariat Provided.)
> > [Appendix 18] Eric's Procedure for Posting to the List
> > [Appendix 19] Greg Burton's Comment on "NC and Consensus"
> > [Appendix 20] Kent Crispin's Comments on Working Groups
> > [Appendix 21] Kent Crispin's Comment on WG-Review
> > [Appendix 22] Greg Burton's Preliminary Report(I) on Consensus
> > [Appendix 23] Greg Burton's Preliminary Report(II) -
> >                         3. Constituencies and 4. GA
> > ===============================================
> >                                             [End of Message]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>