Re: [council] Request for waiver to the Names Council

["Harold J. Feld" <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

Jonathon:

I touched on this briefly at Today's NC conference call in the context 
of how thw Wait List Service Task force should work.

The original model of the DNSO (and the ASO and the PSO) in ICANN was 
that the DNSO would create policy through a consensus process.  It 
required the DNSO to identify consensus.  This it did via a two-thirds 
vote of the consticuencies through their NC representatives.

_How_ the DNSO identified consensus beyond the voting method was never 
clear.  Public comments were clearly intended to play some roll, but 
because individuals have no formal vote in the DNSO, there is no 
requirement that any DNSO vote reflect the public comments.  Nor was it 
clear whether representatives to the NC voted their own opinions or only 
formal, consticuency based approved positions.

Over the three years that the DNSO has been operative, a number of 
approaches have been tried.  What appeared to be emerging, prior to 
Accra and the ICANN reform, was a model where the Names Council created 
task forces to develop initial recommendations, witht he TFs taking 
public comments into account but deciding recommendation by discussion 
and formal vote among members.  The NC then debated these in 
consultation with their consticuencies, with different consticuencies 
having different expectations for how closely the NC rep must consult 
with the consticuency before taking action.

The most complete expression of this decision-making process was the 
.org recommendations set to the Board at Accra.

ICANN reform and the Board's action at Accra changed this model 
irreversibly.  The statement that the DNSO merely offers "advice" that 
the Board is free to take or not logically must shift the means by which 
the DNSO acts.  The DNSO becomes much less a policy body and becomes a 
consultive body.

In the new model that has emerged since Accra, as playing out in the 
transfers task force WLS discussion and seems to be enshrined in the 
current blueprint approved in Bucharest, the roll of the DNSO and its 
task forces is to provide a menu of suggestions for the Board to 
consider, which chronicles the debate within the community at the DNSO 
level.  Thus, the transfer task force will present the NC with a report 
that summarizes the public comments, the range of opinions expressed by 
the constituencies, and makes several sets of recommendations.  The NC 
will discuss it, providing more fformalized feedback from the 
consticuencies, and will forward this chronicle of the debate and 
smorgasbord of recommendations up tot he Board.  The Board, however, 
retains to itself the right to determine any set of actions, even those 
entirely inconsistent with the final DNSO report (presumably because the 
Board has a greater sense of community consensus, since ICANN Board 
decisions are supposed to be based on consensus).

In this new model, Board liason makes good sense.  Since the Board is 
the ultimate decisionmaker on policy, the sooner and more informed the 
Board, the better.  More importantly, it provides the Board with the 
opportuntity to control the flow of debate from the beginning.  Since 
there is clearly no value in exploring pathways and policies not 
palatable to the Board, no matter how popular they may be with the 
consticuencies or the public at large, the Board liason can effectively 
exercise a veto power early in the process and ensure that a carefully 
guided debate provides suitable implementation mechanisms for whatever 
outcome the Board prefers (or, at the least, prevent the development of 
a consensus opinion the Board will reject as unpalatable or incosistent 
with its goals).

Harold Feld

Jonathan Cohen wrote:

> Marilyn,
> Noone in the ICANN 'family' has done more,spoken out more,worked harder or longer, or brought more committment and passion to the arena than you.
> I have watched with amazement for more than 4 years and still remember our 1st meeting in 'DC" where your knowledge and straightforwardness so impressed me (stunned may be better word)As you say,you and I and the Board may hold different views on issues of the moment but the Board as a whole and your DNSO Directors are committed deeply to a better ,fairer,open,relevant ICANN and that includes an effective Policy Arm the DNSO or its logical successor
> So I return the Thanks with respect and affection .We will share your thoughts with the whole Board and we remain available to work with,and listen to the DNSO.Alix and Amadeu share my feelings and both ensure that DNSO issues are heard at the Board and weighed in with due consideration.
> Part of the 'new' structure may be to adopt a practice I suggested 2 years ago to Esther...to have specific(logical) Directors assigned to liase directly with the various SO,s and Advisory Groups to ensure that all pertinent info and views (majority and minority) get to the Board 'accurately' and  on a timely basis.This will also allow the 'community' to know where,to whom to direct their concerns ,facts,questions,lobbying etc ? what do you all think (southern style question!)
> Jonathan
>