RE: [council] ICANN institutional structure (long)

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Harold,

> 
> A natural consequence of the Board's determination to 
> exercise ultimate 
> policy authority, and its history of the last two years of exercising 
> that authority regularly rather than in exceptional circumstance, is 
> that those who desire to affect policy will focus their efforts on 
> persuading the Board.  Persuading the DNSO is, perhpas, 
> useful, but not 
> sufficient.  Nor is it even necessary, since the Board may 
> over-ride the 
> determination of the DNSO based on nothing more than the 
> judgment of the 
> majority of directors.
> 

This is a good summary of the situation.  I don't think it is necessarily
the fault of the Board, or part of any plot.  I don't think consensus
decision making has worked so far in the names council, and most have given
up.  Thus we have issues still sitting in the DNSO names council, with
no-one really willing to commit any effort to working on them in the DNSO.
I am less concerned about trying to put more representation on the Board,
and more concerned that we work on developing processes that ensure that the
DNSO is the place to put the effort, and that it will achive results.


> Furthermore, it effects the flow of discussion below.  Since 
> the Board 
> is the ultimate arbiter, it does not benefit us in the DNSO or the 
> community at large to fix upon a single recommendation: particularly 
> when a matter is complex and subject to multiple p.o.v.  This 
> is why I 
> have supported the approach taken by the WLS task force.  It provides 
> the Board, the ultimate arbiters, with a range of options that best 
> reflect the general feeling of the community on a complex 
> issue.  While 
> it is by no means certain how the DNSO will proceed on this, my own 
> recommendation is that we discuss the task force report and 
> then send it 
> to the board with any additions we have.

This may be necessary, when consensus cannot be achieved.  I agree if
consensus can't be achieved, that the best course of action is to document
the various positions and let the Board decide based on informed input.  I
will define consensus as 2/3 agreement.


> 
> All of us on the DNSO want our work to be useful.  We do not want to 
> waste our time any more than the Board does.  My organization is 
> spending a significant percentage of our telephone budget for me to 
> participate in these calls.  Our colleagues in Australia and Asia are 
> staying up to God-awful time of the morning to participate.  
> We are all 
> trying to make it work and not waste our time on things that are 
> obviously unproductive.

Agreed!


> 
> And I have seen a number of people, particularly in my consticuency, 
> completely lose heart and abandon the process all together.

This is also unfortunately occuring amongst the registrars constituency on
the issue of transfers.  It is now basically anything goes, and this will
continue to get worse.


> 
> 
> I am not saying otherwise.  What I am saying is that the locus of 
> decisionmaking is not at the SO level, with modest oversight from the 
> Board, but at the Board level.  The DNSO's roll is not to identify 
> consensus and determine name policy.  The DNSO roll has become one of 
> convening the conversation, synthasizing the main threads, and then 
> reporting up to the Board for ultimate decision.

Well this is the crux of the debate.  If DNSO's role is to work towards
consensus and hence determine policy - the real question is how to go about
this.  If the DNSO fails in this role, then the natural consequence is that
it becomes irrelevant, and an unnecessary layer in the policy development
process.  I hope that this situation can be turned around.


> 
> An understanding of how the process actually works is crucial to 
> meaningful participation at all levels.

Agreed.

Regards,
Bruce
>