[ga] [Version 1.1: Sept. 6] Draft DNSO Review Report

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

Dear Members and Non-Members of DNSO Review Committee,

Appreciating those who have actively participated in this process
mostly from the external parties, I would like to wrap up the second
round of this discussion.

Considering that there are only TWO-WEEKS before NC's next
teleconference, Sept. 21, we have to proceed this process more
tightly and hope more active and constructive discussions from now on.

Therefore, I hereby propose a timeframe which will facilitate this task
force to accomplish its self-assigned duty by NC-selves in Yokohama
NC meeting together with its upadated version.

Because of more concerns and activities outside this Review Committee,
it is reasonable that this draft report get recognitions from members of
both Review Committee itself and other intersted stakeholders who
have been contributing to the works.

Thank you again.

YJ Park
Member of DNSO Review Committee
Member and NC of Non-Commercial Constituency
------------------------------------------------------
Report on DNSO Review Committee August 2000 version 1.1
(Version 1: August. 28)
                                                            YJ Park
                                                            2000. Sept.6

Names Council Review Committee
[DRAFT Report] DNSO REVIEW version 1.1

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Responsibilities of DNSO Names Council
III. DNSO Structure
IV. DNSO Performance Improvement Proposals
V. AOB

[Appendix I] Background of the DNSO Review Committee
[Appendix II] Timeframe of DNSO Review Committee
[Appendix III] Implementation Plan of Forming WG F
[Appendix IV] The Participants of DNSO Review Committee

I. Introduction

This Draft Report ensures unfiltered inputs from all DNSO participants.
Just in case some concerns or names are missed here, please understand
they will be updated in the next version based upon your comments.

1) Destination

This draft report is intended for further discussion at the NC teleconfernce
meeting on Sept. 21 2000.

2) Purpose

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.

II. Responsibilities of DNSO Names Council

1) Advisory Role to ICANN Board

(1) Defined Responsibility:
With the responsibility of advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy
issues relating to the domain name system. The DNSO has the primary
responsibility for developing and recommending substantive policies
regarding to the domain name system. Additionally, the Board can veer
proposals for substantive policies regarding the domain name system to the
DNSO for initial consideration and recommendation to the Board.

(2) Up To Now
NC have passed down their main responsibilty to ICANN Staff
both voluntarily and unconsciously. NC's works have been more
focused on administrative facilitators rather than advisory body
such as DNSO Board election, DNSO Working Group Report
review: A, B, C based upon votes missing discussions among NC.
and teleconference or physical meetings during the DNSO/ICANN.

(3) The Proposals to Better NC in the Future

A. After asking ICANN staff to describe all the details which definitely
    need lots of legal and technical expertise, NC should review
    whether or not such missions have been properly done by the staff.

B. The informal meetings between NC and Board are expected in the
    ICANN meeting to update each other. There have been some cases
    which made some members of NC perplexed by abrupt ICANN Board
    decisions such as ICANN and NSI contract and New gTLD decision.

C. If NC can't find any consensus in any Working Group's Report,
    NC is required to come back to Working Group with further works
    rather than concluding that there was no consensus in the report.

2) Communication Facilitator Role

Admitting that NC had neglected the communication with other
relevant parties, the Proposals to Better NC in the Future are as follows:

DNSO Review Committee recommends that the communication

A. Between each constituency and its NC members
B. Between ICANN staff and NC members
C. Between ICANN staff and constituency members
D. Between DNSO and other SOs such as ASO and PSO

should be more open and easy to be accessible upon the requests.

III. DNSO Structure:

1) Constituency

(1) Substantial criticisms and frustrations have been expressed.

A. Polarization, Not Balanced, as those who are in the DNSO
to represent a constituency feel obliged to serve that constituency's
interests whether that makes sense in a global context or not

B. Underrepresentation, since many interested voices have trouble
fitting into one or another of the constituencies

C. Overrepresentation, Not Honest, since many interested voices
(Business and IP are the most obvious) find themselves natural
parts of several constituencies

D. Misrepresentation, since the selection of a few people to act as
spokesmen for a constituency obscures the sometimes significant
differences of opinion within a constituency

E. Not flexible  (different interest groups will need representation as
their "patch" gets in regulatory focus).  The Paris Draft has merit  on
this point. Parties should be allowed to form naturally.

(2) The Proposals to Better Constituency in the Future

A. 3 constituencies Model
    - Registries (ccTLDs, and gTLDs),
    - Registrars
    - Users
      (Trademark and intellectual property, Commercial and Business
       entities, ISPs and connectivity providers, Non-commercial
       domain name holders, Individual domain Name holders etc. )

B. There should not be pure ccTLD- , gTLD, Registrar- etc. -groups.
We have all more that one lable, and we should work together in the DNSO.

C. IETF model.

All working groups have mailing lists. Both those lists and the meetings
are open to all comers. Moreover, everyone is expected to "leave
their affiliations at the door" for working group meetings. The goal is to
solve problems for the net, based on technical merit, NOT to represent
your employer or interest group. Of course, it isn't actually that simple
but at least the notion of leaving affiliations out of it is considered.

2) General Assembly
FYI, Not many comments have been received regarding GA.

(1) Defined Responsibilities:

(2) Up To Now

The GA has improved subsequently to the elections of the Chairs.

(3) The Proposals To Better GA in the Future

3) Working Group

No comment has been expressed on working group itself.

4) Concern in Centralized or a Decentralized structure

The concerns in "More Distributed/Decentralized" Structure in general
and here especially distributed secretariat concept is expected to be
materialized across the relevant secretariats.

    A. ICANN Secretariat
    B. DNSO Secretariat
    C. Constituency's Secretariat

This issue always encounters the efficiency vs diversity therefore,
the balance between these two values should be equally respected
when it is implemented. FYI, the concept of interim ccTLD secretariat
right now can be a good example as a long-term role model for
the equivalent entities.

Secretariat model encourages the five regions to join this effort
in a various format such as from translation to operation on every-day basis
however, the true spirit in this lies in the fact everybody contributes to
the NET to some extents.

IV. DNSO Performance Improvement Proposals

1) NC Representatives are expected to discuss with Constituencies
members and to report to the members always considering
constituencies inputs.

2) In case a NC representative neglect his/her duties, he/she can be
requested whether or not he/she is willing to continue the resposibilities
by constituency members.

3) To minimize the amount of subjectivity and to increase the amount of
measurable objective criteria in the consensus-building process.  This
should result in clearer direction for working groups, committees,
Constituencies, etc. and it should therefore make it more readily possible
for the NC to perform its role of managing the consensus-building process
in a way that will create increased confidence throughout the Internet
community.

4) Where the owners of the voices have neither the inclination nor
the temperament to reach for consensus, reaching consensus in a loud
environment will always be hard. Therefore, the responsible voice
is necessary.

5) Multiculture environments can really work together, if they want to
and if they have a common goal. The problem with the current DNSO
is that the people DO NOT HAVE A COMMON GOAL.
There are too many agendas.

V. AOB

1) How much or little should the NC be involved in the detailed
management of ICANN?

2) Concern in Forming Individual Domain Name Holder Constituency

3) The Concerns in Relations Between DNSO and At-Large

There seem to be a large number of individuals who are members of
both groups - and no rule in place to stop someone from being nominated
to stand for the ICANN board in both venues, in the hope of doubling
their chances of "getting in".

ICANN Director is personal responsible and must work for the best
of ICANN as a whole, and not just for one constituency in DNSO
or one group of At-Large members. A Board member represents
himself (herself) and not certain groups, even if she (he) has support
from various groups of people.

4) Regarding UDRP implementation, a Working Group to develop
guidelines to be recommended by the DNSO has been requested based
upon the fact that while WIPO panelists have the legal expertise,
the expertise in common usage of the DNs lies with the DNSO.
---------------------------------------------------------------
[Appendix I] Background of the DNSO Review Committee

Since the DNSO was recognized during the Berlin ICANN meeting
in 1999 May, the DNSO has set up the Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy(UDRP) through a series of works by Working Group A,
Names Council's review on Working Group A report followed by
its recommendation based upon the Working Group A's report
to the Board and the final adoption by the Board.

Secondly, DNSO is under new gTLD creation process through another
series of works by Working Group B and C, Names Council's review
on Working Group B and C reports followed by its recommendations
to the Board which half-adopted and half-denied the consensus of the
reports in finalizing the NC's position.

There have been quite noticeble concerns in 1) the role of Working Groups,
2) the functions and responsibilities of Names Council 3) where General
Assembly is located within the DNSO 4) the relations between NC and
other relevant entities such as Board, ICANN Staff, Working Groups, GA
etc. and 5) the orginal review on the DNSO constituency sturucture.

Therefore, the attempt to review DNSO has been discussed during the
Yokohama ICANN meeting under support from ICANN Board and
its staff so as to ameliorate DNSO.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[Appendix II] Timeframe of DNSO Review Committee

Sept. 6 - 13  : Review by both Names Council Review Committee
                      and Interested Stakeholders(Constituencies, GA, ..)
Sept. 13 - 20: Expected to come up with new version.
---------------------------------------------------------------
[Appendix III] Implementation Plan of Forming WG F

Sept. 21 : The initial discussion during the NC teleconference
Sept. 21 - 30: Call for Participation
Oct. 1 - 10 : Request for Proposal on WG F's Charter
Oct. 11- 18: To Finalize the WG F's Charter
Oct. 19: The Formal Recognition of WG F in the NC teleconference
---------------------------------------------------------------
[Appendix IV] The Participants of DNSO Review Committee

Members of NC DNSO Review Committee
Theresa Swinehart
Roger Cochetti
Hirofumi Hotta
Paul Kane
Patricio Poblete
Axel Aus der Muhlen
YJ Park

Non-NC Members of DNSO Review Committee
Roberto Gaetano
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Pindar Wong
Louis Touton
Andrew McLaughlin

People who have given the inputs to DNSO RC

Mark C . Langston
Milton Mueller
Kent Crispin
Roeland M.J. Meyer
Jeff Williams
Dave Crocker
Chuck Gomez
Herald Alvestrand
Michael Froomkin
Joop Teernstra
Dennis Schaefer
Rick H Wesson(Any Alternative)
Jean-Michel Becar
James Love
Jonathan Weinberg
Sandy Harris
William X. Walsh
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Alf Hansen
Per Koelle
Simon Higgs
Liz Bartlett
--------------------------------------------------------
                            [End of Message]

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html