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

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

A few hurried comments:

At 01:07 AM 9/7/2000 +0800, YJ Park wrote:

>(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.

These are valid concerns, however, they pertain more to the status and 
powers of the ICANN staff than to DNSO. If the criticism is that ICANN 
staff has too much weight in policymaking, it is definitely true, however, 
this will not be fixed by changing the DNSO. The proper remedy for that is 
to elect Board members who will change the staff.

>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.

I think I agree with this but the language is not clear. Do you mean the NC 
should "request further work" from the WG, or that the NC should do the 
work itself and return it to the WG?

>2) Communication Facilitator Role
>
>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.

These recommendations are not meaningful, in my opinion. How is better 
communication implemented? That is what matters. If there is not effective 
communication now, it is because of political and structural factors.

>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.

Agree with all of the above.

>(2) The Proposals to Better Constituency in the Future
>
>A. 3 constituencies Model
>     - Registries (ccTLDs, and gTLDs),
>     - Registrars
>     - Users

This is simpler, but the Users are always outnumbered.
I think we need to explore concepts put forward by the Paris draft that do 
not base the organization of the DNSO upon special interest groups 
(so-called "constituencies") this may require a radical rethinking of DNSO 
structure. Does ICANN have the stomach for this?

>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.

Again, these are normative exhortations. I agree with their spirit, but 
believe that the structure of DNSO, and of ICANN, makes it impossible to 
realize them.

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

The original idea (Paris draft) of the General Assembly as the actual 
source of proposals is a good one. It gets beyond the constituency structure.

--MM

--
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