[council] Re: Board Review

[vint cerf <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>]

Danny,

thanks for drawing this problem to our attention. 

I will place it on the agenda for an upcoming board
meeting.

vint

At 05:09 PM 12/17/2001 -0500, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Dear members of the Board:
>
>Since the early days of the formation of the DNSO, there has been an ongoing 
>debate regarding the respective roles of the General Assembly and the Names 
>Council.  This debate first took shape at the Berlin informal meeting of the 
>provisional Names Council:   
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990527.NCberlin.html
>
>     "Robert Hall - The work of the DNSO is done in the General Assembly
>
>     Javier Sola - No, the Names Council does the work
>
>     Antony Van Couvering - The Singapore meeting came up with a set of 
>principles that reflects a    compromise between the DNSO group and the Paris 
>Draft group - and the compromise is that the General Assembly does the work 
>through research groups and the Names Council manages and facilitates 
>consensus.
>
>     Jon Englund - [Goes over history of the bylaws]
>
>     Rob Hall - Is it appropriate to ask the ICANN Board to talk about the 
>intent of the bylaws?"
>
>
>Mr. Hall's question remains as valid today as when it was first posed over 
>three years ago.  
>
>When we look back at the bylaws, we note that the original bylaws stated:  
>"The Domain Name Supporting Organization shall create a Names Council to make 
>recommendations regarding TLDs, including operation, assignment and 
>management of the domain name system and other related subjects." 
>http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-06nov98.htm
>
>The role of the Council was defined as that of a body that would forward 
>recommendations (which ostensibly were based upon the work-product of the 
>General Assembly as per the above-cited compromise).
>
>After a period of time, the bylaws were amended to include the following:    
>"(The NC) shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry 
>out that responsibility (the management of the consensus building process), 
>including the designation of such research or drafting committees, working 
>groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry 
>out the substantive work of the DNSO.  Such bodies shall include at least one 
>representative nominated by each recognized Constituency..."  
>http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-31mar99.htm#VI-B 
>
>The clear intent of this amendment was to designate the Assembly as the home 
>for all research and DNSO-related consensus-building work, and to make sure 
>that such bodies in the spirit of fairness included (at a bare minimum) one 
>nominated representative from each constituency.
>
>This language was modified six months later to state:  "Each recognized 
>Constituency shall be invited to participate in each of such bodies."  This 
>change was suggested by ICANN staff who provided the following commentary:  
>"Eliminates the possibility that one constituency would try to veto the 
>creation of a working group by simply refusing to participate".  
>http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws-amend-redline-8oct99.htm
>
>At that point in time it was understood that working groups of the GA would 
>handle the substantive work of the DNSO, that constituencies would be 
>cordially invited to participate in those GA bodies (and could decline should 
>they choose to exercise that option), and that based on the work of those GA 
>bodies, the Council would tender recommendations.  The overriding concern of 
>the Board was that any one group might act to veto the creation of an open 
>working group.
>
>At the same time that this change in the bylaws was effected, another change 
>simultaneously occured.  There was a clause in the bylaws that was 
>eliminated.  That clause stated:  "(j) The NC shall establish, subject to 
>review and approval by the Board, an appropriate mechanism for review of 
>grievances and/or reconsideration."  In eliminating this clause, the staff 
>commented:  "deleted reconsideration language because Board review is 
>sufficient protection."
>
>We have now reached the point where the General Assembly requires the 
>protection that can be afforded by Board Review.   The creation of open 
>working groups is repeatedly being vetoed by the Names Council to the 
>detriment of the General Assembly.  The very activity that this Board chose 
>to guard against is now routinely being flaunted by the Names Council.
>
>Instead of constituencies being invited to participate in the bodies of the 
>GA, the Council has manipulated procedures so that the GA is now only allowed 
>one representative on a body of the NC (task force), and no GA bodies are 
>ever "designated" by the Council.
>
>This perversion of the intent of the bylaws has led to acrimony, 
>divisiveness, and has greatly contributed to the dysfunctional state of the 
>DNSO.  The General Assembly is cognizant of the fact that the current 
>state-of-affairs in the DNSO is less-than-ideal, and yet has abided by 
>processes stipulated and has submitted well over 3500 comments pertaining to 
>review-related issues.  We have also put forth a proposal regarding a 
>possible restructuring of the DNSO:  
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-DNSO-Motion-Reorg-vote.html  
>
>We note that in response to our concerns, the Council has submitted to the 
>Board a Review task force report that instead paints the picture that all is 
>rosy, and that (after a year-long review) no changes in the DNSO are 
>required.  We strongly disagree.
>
>The General Assembly needs the benefit of a Board review of this matter as 
>the future of working groups and the intent of the bylaws remains at issue.
>
>Your assistance in this matter will be highly appreciated.
>
>Best regards,
>Danny Younger