Re: [ga] DNSO Review - Questions on DNSO Responsibilities

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

Harald and everyone,

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> My personal comments only....
>
> At 09:31 03/10/2000 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >·       To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled the responsibilities in A, B and
> >  C?
>
> A (UDRP): Succeeded in creating the policy.

  It also created a morass and an opportunity for RDNH.

> Failed to provide a structure
> for its modification after its behaviour in practice has been seen.

  Not that surprising given WIPO's well known history.

>
> B (new GTLDs): Succeeded in expressing a minimal consensus (6-10,
> evaluation). Failed in establishing a procedure for evaluating proposals
> for those 6-10.

  Minimal Consensus?   Do you have a definition for "Minimal Consensus"?
I have yet to see one or even hear of one.  6-10 TLD's is not a consensus
or even what is commonly respected "Rough Consensus" from what
I have read from the Wg-C archives.

>
> 6 (votes): In form, yes.
>
> >·       Have the policies recommended by the DNSO represented an adequate
> >consensus of the affected stakeholders?  Have the       viewpoints of all
> >stakeholders been considered?
>
> Adequate consensus: To the degree that there was an adequate consensus to
> be found, yes.

  A definition for "Adequate Consensus"?

> Has failed to prove that consensus can be reached when there
> are strong conflicts between different stakeholders.

 True.  And disappointing.  Therefore possibly these decisions
need to be made by a referendum vote by the stakeholders?

>
> The viewpoints of all stakeholders have been aired. It is impossible to say
> whether they have been considered or not.

  True.

>
>
> >·       Have the recommendations been well defined, useful in terms of being
> >timely and being structured with a degree of specificity/flexibility
> >appropriate to allow practical implementation?
>
> No. They have been unclear, limited and have taken a long time getting
> produced. They have left far too much of the practical implementation
> details to the ICANN board and ICANN staff. The root cause of this is, I
> believe, the inability to reach consensus.

  Implementation is a lack of ability, not of consensus.

>
>
> >·       To the extent the recommendations have been adopted as policies, have
> >they received the support of those being asked to implement them?
>
> Yes (6-10 and UDRP).

  Not correct.  Please try to be honest and accurate.

>
>
> >·       Has the DNSO failed to address problems that have been called to its
> >attention through the Names Council?
> >
> >
> >·       Does the DNSO performance require improvement, and if so, how?
>
> Yes, and I don't know.
>
> >·       Are the responsibilities of the components (NC, Constituencies, GA)
> >and the relationship among them well defined?
>
> No.
>
> >·       How can the DNSO minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the
> >amount of objective consensus building, with its current structure? With
> >  a different structure?
>
> Input into the process, an idea:
>
> Abandon constituencies as a basis for reaching proposals. Go with groups of
> named experts and open fora instead, leaving the constituencies with the
> role of saying "yes" or "no" to finished proposals from expert groups.

  Yes, constituencies as defined by ICANN should be discontinued.  Your
view of a replacement is questionable and has a "Can of Worms" factor
that should be avoided as you state it here.

>
>
> >·       Has the DNSO process brought expertise to the issues it has addressed?
> >   If not, how can the degree of expertise be    enhanced?
>
> It has brought a great deal of shouting. It is not clear that this shouting
> has been done mainly, or even to any large degree, by experts.
> Some experts say that they cannot participate in DNSO open fora because
> they do not have time or temperament to listen to the noise. If true, this
> is a problem.

  There is a problem with anyone that has a lack of temperament.  Patience
and understanding are all parts of being and real and professional
"Expert".  Few whom espouse to be experts, posses the proper qualifications.

>
>
> My answers only....
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Bob Davis,

_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--
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