ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] NC Task Force -Review report


[ga@dnso.org]
[council@dnso.org]
[announce@dnso.org]
[constituency secretariats]
 
Please find the NC Task Force - Review report.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCtaskforce-report.html

Interim report of the Names Council task force on Review.                     

Start of public comment period ending midnight local time zone 28 October
2001.

  Please find attached the above mentioned report from the Names Council task force on review. Please note the task force was given concise terms of  reference and not all issues relating to DNSO review orICANN restructuring are intended to be included. Many issues of organisation and structure are now under discussion in the NC structure task force.
Your comments are welcome on this Interim report. After the close of the comment period on 28 October, the task force will consider comments received and produce a final report for submission to the Names Council. The target
date for this is the November meeting in Los Angeles.

_________________________________________________________
ICANN/DNSO
Interim report of the Names Council review task force, September 2
 -----------------------------------------------
Timeline and process
30   September   Deadline   for  task   force   comment   on  first   draft.
7   October   Deadline   for    task   force   comment   on   second   draft
28 October  Deadline for comment  on interim report sent  for public comment and to NC.
4   November   Deadline   for  final   report   produced   by  task   force.
13 November Final report adopted by NC at LA meeting
Authority and terms of reference

Names Council  business plan  2001-2002 and NC endorsed  proposal of interim review task force May 2001.

 6.2. Consultation. Review the recommendations of WG D and the Review Task Force and Working Group Report and implement a means of outreach and stakeholder consultation with built-in mechanisms for fulfilling the objectives.

ACTION: Accept the framework proposed by WG-D as is, and turn the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines. Give it a chance to work, if it doesn't, then take steps to make alternative proposals. Related to this, determine alternatives to conducting working group activities, such as using web-based fora where proposed text is actively amended and worked on towards consensus.

6.3. GA Chair. Review the current system of election for the General Assembly Chair and propose changes if required.
ACTION: Form a small group (or include in a possible
implementation task force mandate) to report on the current system of elections for the GA chair, and assess whether changes are beneficial or required.
 6.4. Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential contribution and representativeness of an individual domain name holder's constituency.

ACTION: There is strong support for an individuals constituency. The outstanding issue is next steps. Options to discuss on next steps are:
1) Making the GA the basis for the constituency, or 2)
 Accepting independent proposals by a certain date, or 3) Form a task force (7 constituencies) to set the criteria for an individual constituency (reviewing work already done and consolidating it into a proposal).

6.5 Language diversity. Recommend cost effective means to provide language diversity in the context of DNSO decisions. Form a small group (3-5) who may co-opt translation experts to make recommendations.
 ACTION: Determine costs, and next steps to implement a cost effective means to provide translations.

6.6. Consensus. Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the purposes of NC consultation activities.

ACTION: Form a task force (7 constituencies) to review consensus models used elsewhere and outline practical definition.
1. Consultation (business plan reference 6.2)

Recommendation on working groups

The  adoption  of  the  guidelines  for  working  groups in  appendix  A  is recommended.
Web-based  fora  as  alternatives  to conducting  working  group  activities

The task force intentionally decide to use for its own work, and thus trial a web-based  for a recommended by a member of the  task force. The results of
the trial  were inconclusive but  in comparison with the  exchange of e-mail via  lists  there  seemed  little  advantage. Most  notably,  the  following irritations were found:

   * there were too many options for posting information

   * an announcements section truncated long messages

   * an auto-notification option had to be activated and offered too many
     options

   * the system was overly geared to frequent voting

   * there was no neat way of segregating separate threads, to enable several discussions to occur simultaneously.

A separate trial of a free service enabling audio and video conferencing was also undergone  by some task force  members. Getting the system  to work wasnot easy. It was  subsequently found also that the system will not work when the user is behind  a NAT. This was felt to be a severe limitation given the increasing need for network security.

Recommendation

Further input from other web-based fora is welcome but at this time adoption of  any   one  model   in  place  of   e-mail  lists  is   not  recommended.

2. Election of the General Assembly (GA) Chair (business plan reference 6.3)

Article VI-B.2.i of the by-laws states:
"The   NC  shall   elect  the   Chairman  of  the   GA  annually".

The  NC for the  years 2000 and  2001 has  interpreted this by  adopting the following practice:

   * the GA is invited to make nominations

   * nominations receiving 10 endorsements go forward to an election by the GA

   * the GA proposes to the NC the winner and runner-up as the new GA chair and alternate chair respectively

   * the NC endorses the recommendation by a formal vote.

In considering the practice the task force believes this process allows full democratic participation  within the GA,  and presents the NC  with a simple decision when all is satisfactory with the election process.

The  additional safeguard  of an  NC vote  (in compliance with  the by-laws) seems appropriate for two reasons:
a) despite the tendency  for the GA mail lists to be dominated by people not choosing  to  participate via  constituencies  and  sometimes excluded  from
participation, the GA chair should nevertheless represent all constituencies and so  participation by the NC as a  body elected by current constituencies seems to be correct,
b) the  endorsement process provides a safeguard  in the event of objections to  the  electoral process.  Discussion  following the  2001 election  would appear to vindicate the existence of such a safeguard.
Recommendation
There does  not appear  to be a  demonstrated need to  seek a  change in the ICANN by-laws at present.
3. New Constituencies (business plan reference 6.4)

The task  force chose option three  from the terms of  reference but did not consider  itself  the competent  body  to  set criteria  for an  individuals constituency per  se. The task force  decided therefore to produce  a set of
criteria which  would help to clarify  questions of purpose, duplication and representation for any new DNSO constituency.

ICANN by-laws VI-b.3.d

"Any group  of individuals or entities  may petition the Board for recognition  as a new  or separate  Constituency. ? The  Board may create new  Constituencies in response to such  a petition ? if it
 determines  that  such  action would  serve  the  purposes of  the Corporation.  ?..Whenever the  Board  posts a  petition ?  it will notify the  names council  and will consider any  response to that notification prior to taking action."
In other  words any group may ask the Board and  the Board will consult with the Names Council. It is therefore necessary for the Names Council to have a
basis upon which to evaluate any such petition.

Recommendation
It  is  recommended that  the  petitioner  for a  new  DNSO constituency  is requested by the Names Council to include in any petition the answers to the questions specified in appendix B.

The  task  force believes  the  petitioners of  an individuals  constituency previously communicated  to the Board should  be warmly encouraged to answer
these questions.

4. Language diversity (business plan reference 6.5)
In seeking  to recommend cost effective  means to provide language diversity in the  context of DNSO decisions,  the task force was  cognisant of current
DNSO  finances.   The  entire  costs  of  running   the  DNSO  are  born  by contributions raised by the  constituencies - a process which both imposes a
burden  on some  constituencies  and wastes  time  for all.  The task  force quickly  agreed not to  waste time  in seeking translations  from commercial suppliers   because,  at   this  time,   there  is  no   finance  available.

Given also  that throughout the existence of the DNSO  there has been a call for  consistent voluntary translation  that has  not been answered  the task force also decided not  to pursue this option further at this time. The task
force would be delighted to hear from volunteers alerted to this need during the public  consultation phase of this report.  However, the task force also recognises  that a piecemeal  approach to  translation is not  desirable and
that any voluntary effort  has to be sustainable, based on a coherent set of languages, and be of reliable quality.

The task  force therefore chose to  explore options for machine translation.
It  was  however  unable  to  find  a  recommendation  by  any  professional translator for  any of  the free internet-based translation  services. It is also  likely  that  even where  machine  translation  is used,  professional
translators, familiar with ICANN  jargon, would be needed to finish the job.
Some professional translators have  commented that using machine translation as a  starting point  can be more  time-consuming than translating  from the original, because the translator has to work out why the machine translation
got the context or sense wrong and then correct.

Further more, should it be the case that one or other of these machine-based services are useful if not optimal, they are of course available now for any
internet user to translate any page from the DNSO web site. This possibility is at  present the best option for  cost-effective translation. It would not seem appropriate without extensive trials for the DNSO to recommend one site above  others. The  task force  would welcome  any intervention  which would advance this objective further.
Recommendation
Given its  highly limited  resources and the higher  priority of substantive policy issues,  the DNSO  should not spend  more time on this,  but note the progress being  made by ICANN staff in this  regard and where appropriate to participate in any cost-effective solution.

5. Consensus (business plan reference 6.6)
Relevance
The task  force was asked to  recommend to the NC  a practical definition of consensus  for  the purposes  of  NC consultation  activities. Consensus  is relevant  to DNSO  decision making as  it is  referenced in the  by-laws and provides certain information to the Board.
VI-B.2.b.  "The  NC  is  responsible  for the  management  of  the consensus building process of the DNSO."

 VI-B.2.d. "If two-thirds (2/3)  of the members of the NC determin that  the DNSO  process has  produced a community  consensus, that consensus position shall be  forwarded to the Board as a consensus recommendation."

 "If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of  the NC determine that the  DNSO process has produced a community consensus,  that position may be  forwarded to the Board as a NC recommendation."

In  the past  the  chairs of  DNSO working  groups  have tried  to establish
guidance to the NC about the degree of consensus within the working group on issues, in order to help with the subsequent NC recommendation to the Board.
There has not been consistency in this guidance.
 
Definitions and usage
Lexicon definitions provide some help.

Consensus,  n.  Agreement  (of  opinion,  testimony, etc.)   Concise  Oxford Dictionary

Consensus, n. a) general agreement, unanimity.

b) the  judgement arrived at  by most of those  concerned. Merriam-Webster?s
Dictionary

The most  useful definition here is  "judgement arrived at by  most of those concerned"   but    to   make    this   practical   needs    two   enablers:

   * a representative sample of DNSO stakeholders

   * a vote of this sample with a pre-determined threshold.

Where   do  we   find   a  representative   sample  of   DNSO  stakeholders?

DNSO  working  groups  as   currently  formed  are  by  construction  not  a representative  sample  of  DNSO  stakeholders  because  they  are  open  to
participation by anyone who chooses. It is possible but improbable that such a group will at  any moment in time be so representative. This suggests that
discussing consensus  in such groups  is unlikely to be  productive and that the guidance given to the NC will be poor.

The  Names Council  is constructed  to represent DNSO  stakeholder interests and,  notwithstanding demands  by  individuals to  participate, is  the best structure we currently have to be representative. This validates the by-laws faith in  the NC as being a possible home for  consensus itself but does not help the  NC in its task  of having to "determine  that the DNSO process has
produced a community consensus".

In essence the by-laws charge the NC with a task but offer no help as to howthe task should be done. It seems therefore that the most logical route (andindeed the route that experience shows us is the one that has been followed) is to  say that the NC vote itself on  a recommendation, being reflective of
the  elected representatives  of  DNSO stakeholders,  is the  only practical means of determining community consensus.

Recommendation

Working groups  with open participation  may hold straw polls  but, to avoid confusion, should not describe  the results using the terminology consensus.
The  term    a   majority  vote  of   the  working  group   is  recommended.

A 2/3 vote  of the NC should be taken as meaning  consensus on the issue and the  by-laws  should be  changed  to  remove the  obligation  on  the NC  to
"determine  community  consensus" with  the  implication it  is an  external factor. Proposed wording for the by-laws change follows.

VI-B.2.d. NEW

"If two-thirds (2/3) of  the members of the NC vote on a recommendation thatrecommendation  shall   be  forwarded   to  the  Board   as  a    consensus
recommendation."

"If more  than one-half (1/2) but less than  two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC vote on a recommendation that recommendation shall be forwarded to the Board as an NC recommendation."

6. Minority viewpoints

Two task force members had alternative opinions on three points.

GA Chair

The representative  of the  GA believed the by-law  requirement and practise whereby  the NC  sanctions the  election result  of the  GA chair  should be abolished.

New constituencies

The representative  of the  GA, while not dismissing  the proposed criteria, believed that that the  creation of new constituencies should have no higher burden than the creation of initial constituencies.

The representative of the NCDNHC proposed the new criteria should be applied retroactively to all constituencies, if they were to apply to new ones.

The  representative of  the  NCDNHC proposed  making  the GA  itself a  DNSO constituency to represent individuals.

Consensus

The representative of the GA preferred the term "working group consensus" in
place of "majority vote of the working group".

The  representative  of  the  NCDNHC did  not  consider  the  DNSO  to be  a "representative body", believing that  the current constituency structure is
unbalanced  and  gives  certain  interests a  veto  power  over policy.  The representative of  the NCDNHC also believed  that open working groups better
reflect the views of the relevant Internet community.

Appendix A

DNSO procedures for Working Groups

Source: Implementation and adaptation of the recommendations of WG D 2001



1. Definition of working group

A  working group is  a group established  by the  Names Council (NC)  of the
Domain Name  Supporting Organisation (DNSO) of  the Internet Corporation for
Assigned  Names and  Numbers  (ICANN) at  its own  initiative  or by  way of considering  a  petition  from  the General  Assembly,  and  charged with  a specific task.

2. Objective

The objective of a Working Group is to:

a) formulate positions on policies,

b)   facilitate  the   development   of  consensus   support  for   policies

c)  produce a  report to the  NC highlighting  these positions and  level of
support.

3. Membership.

Working  Groups  are  open  to all  DNSO  participants  defined as  follows:

- members of the Names Council

- the Names Council secretariat

- members of the ICANN Board

- the ICANN officers and staff

- the GA Chair and Co-Chair

-  members  of the  General  Assembly (GA)  defined  as subscribers  to the
ga@dnso.org  ,      announce@dnso.org    or   the   GA    voting   register.

Persons new to the  ICANN process who wish to participate in a working group will be asked to join the ga-announce list to qualify for membership.

Working Group  membership is open throughout the  life of the Working Group.

4. Criteria

Before  establishing a  working group  the Names  Council will  consider the following criteria:

a) whether the issue is relevant to the mission of the DNSO

b) the need for a consensus policy

c) whether the issue overlaps with that of an existing Working Group

d) whether  there is  sufficient interest within  the DNSO in  the issue and enough people  willing to  expend the effort  to produce the  desired result

e)  whether  there  is  enough  expertise  within  the DNSO  on  the  issue.

5. Terms of reference.

The Names  Council will nominate an individual  or establish a small interim committee  to draft  terms of  reference (a  charter) which will  at minimum
specify:

a) a narrow and achievable objective

b) a timeframe for achieving the objective

c) a set of interim objectives by which to measure progress

d)  a member  of  the Names  Council who  will act  as a  Supervisory Chair.

e) a short descriptive name for the Working Group.

The  draft terms  will be  posted to  the NC  list and the  DNSO ga-announce mailing list  as a public notice that the formation  of the Working Group is being  considered. After  a review period  lasting at  least a week  the NC,
after  reviewing  comments, will  approve  the original  or modified  terms.

Following this the DNSO secretariat will establish:

   * a mailing list or such other electronic forum

   * a procedure for subscribing and un-subscribing to the Working Group

   * a dedicated web page on the DNSO web site (
www.dnso.org)

   * an accessible mailing list archive.

6. Supervisory Chair and WG Chair

The Supervisory Chair has five key functions.

a)   to  be   responsible  for   the  initial   establishment  of   the  WG.

b) to  act as returning officer for holding elections  for a WG chair. These elections should  take place  early but not  too early once  WG participants have got  to know one another. Specifically, a vote  to choose such a person
from early group participants whose chairing abilities may be unknown should be avoided. The Supervisory Chair may themselves stand for election in which case another NC member will supervise the election.

b) to take on all the responsibilities of the Chair especially including the start   of  substantive   discussion,  until   the  election   is  complete.

c) to provide frequent liaison with the Names Council.

d)  to   ensure  the  WG  Chair   is  fulfilling  his/her  responsibilities.

The WG Chair?s key functions are:

a)  to be  responsible for  fulfilling the  terms of  reference in  the time specified,

b) to  be responsible for working  group discipline, focus and achievements,

c)   to    prepare   and   chair   face-to-face    and   on-line   sessions,

d) to ensure that the Working Group operates in an open and fair manner,

e) to  ensure that discussions are relevant (the  Chair should propose a set of topics for e-mail subject headers),

f) to intervene to stop off-topic communication,

g) to summarise outcomes of each issue,

h) to achieve interim  and final objectives in conformance with the terms of reference.

And for face to face meetings the WG Chair is required:

i) to ensure an attendance list is made,

j)   to  publish   a   short  report   on  the   session  within   10  days.

The  WG  Chair  and  the Supervisory  Chair  report  to  the Names  Council.

7. Removal of the Supervisory Chair or Working Group Chair

In the event that the WG Chair:

a) acts contrary to these rules and procedures or beyond the scope set forth in the Working Group?s terms of reference, or

b) fails to achieve interim results then the  Supervisory Chair after consultation  with the Names Council, upon
the reasonable request of  one or more Working Group members, shall have the authority   to   remove   and  hold   elections   for   another  WG   Chair.

In the event that the Supervisory Chair:

a) acts contrary to these rules and procedures or beyond the scope set forth in the Working Group?s terms of reference, or

b) fails to fulfil the responsibilities of a Supervisory Chair, as set forth
above, then the Names Council shall have the authority to remove and appoint another Supervisory Chair.

8. New ideas

New ideas  that are  on-topic will be  made in a  new thread  with a subject heading  that succinctly  and clearly  identifies its subject  matter. Ideas that  are  off topic  will  be  pointed out  by  the WG  Chair and  stopped.

9. Procedural questions

Any member of the  Working Group may raise a question to the WG Chair or the Supervisory Chair  that relates to the  procedures of the group  (a point of
order). Any procedural question which is not answered to the satisfaction of the  person asking  it should  be directed  to the  NC Intake  Committee for
consideration.
nc-intake@dnso.org

10. Voting

From  time to  time  progress will  be advanced  by  holding straw  polls to determine the majority view.  A motion to approve a draft proposal or report
(or any  section thereof)  may be made  by any member of  the Working Group.
Once seconded  and approved by the  WG Chair, such motion  shall be put to a vote of the Working Group members. In such an event, the WG Chair shall poll
the Working  Group members.  Motions that receive  a majority of  votes cast shall be deemed approved.

Consensus. Because of the  diverse nature of open working groups the results of any vote will be taken solely to assist with progress within the group. A
majority vote of a working group should be described as a majority vote of a working group.  No claim to DNSO  stakeholder consensus should be attributed to such a vote.

11. Real time work

Working  Group members  or subsets of  the group  may meet in  real-time (in person  or via  a  form of  electronic conferencing).  Decisions  reached or drafts developed  during real-time meetings must  be reviewed on the mailing list or other forum.

12. Proposal development

Groups drafting  position statements  should publish them to  the WG. Groups submitting  interim  position  statements should  be  free  to revise  those
statements  after  reading  the reports  or  others.  Working Groups  should publish  the  position  statements for  a  period  of comment,  specifically
seeking  comments not  only on the  substance of  the positions but  also on impact and cost issues.  These positions papers should not be the end result
of the Working Group?s efforts, but should serve as tools for finding common ground  and addressing  concerns of  specific groups. Working  Group members
should strive to make compromises when appropriate.

13. Disputes and role of an interim report

Many  conflicts can  be  resolved by  simple votes.  The majority  view goes forward  and is  documented  in an  interim  report. However,  where in  the
opinion  of the  WG Chair,  there is  a significant minority  proposal, this proposal  should also  be documented  in the  interim report of  the Working Group.

The interim report should contain:

(a)  an abstract  of  all proposals  which  achieved a  meaningful level  of support,

(b) a clear statement of what is being proposed and its underlying rationale

(c) an  analysis of who and  what systems might be  impacted by the proposal

(d)  the specific  steps that would  be necessary  to take to  implement the proposal

(e) the  costs and risks, if any, of implementing  the proposal and how they would be borne

(f) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities.
14. Draft final report
The  goal of  the Working Group  process is  to produce a  Report containing recommendations for submission to the NC.
The Report should contain the following sections:

a) Executive summary of not more than 1000 words.

b) Terms of reference

c) Conclusion  - a clear and concise statement  of the proposal discussed in the Working Group and the conclusion reached.

d) Impact  analysis -  a full analysis  of who might  be impacted, including other supporting organisations, and in what ways, by such a policy.

e) Constituency impact reviews - a summary and analysis of evidence provided by DNSO constituencies.

f) Record of outreach  - a record of outreach to any segment of the Internet community that might be affected by the proposed policy.

g)  Minority  reports -  a  fair statement  of  points in  opposition and  a substantive analysis of their merits and the intensity of the opposition.

h) Supporting  arguments - a summary  of the best arguments  for adoption of the policy.

i) Risk/Cost  analysis - an analysis of the risks  and costs of the proposed policy.

15. Publication and comment period

The  interim  report should  be  published  to the  General Assembly,  Names Council and Constituency secretariats  for debate, comment and criticism and the resulting  feedback incorporated into a  Final Report. The Working Group shall  provide  such  comment   period  as  is  reasonable  considering  the
complexity, importance, and urgency of the policy under consideration.

16. Final report

The final  report shall  be submitted by  the WG Chair to  the Names Council within   the   time   frame   specified   in   the   terms   of   reference.

17. Termination

Working Groups  will be disbanded automatically  on completion of their task or  disbanded  by  the   Names  Council  earlier  if  deadlock  is  evident.

18. Revising the terms of reference

The terms of reference may be re-visited by the Names Council on the request of the WG Chair or the Supervisory Chair.

Appendix B

Criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies
1. Need

1.1 What need would the proposed new constituency fill?

1.2 What  would the proposed new constituency bring to  the DNSO that is now
lacking?

2. Common interest

2.1  What commonality  of  interest would  the members  of the  proposed new
constituency share?

3. Distinction

3.1  How  much overlap  in  membership is  there  likely to  be between  the
proposed new constituency and  existing constituencies, the General Assembly
and other parts of ICANN?

4. Representation

4.1 How representative of  the stated common interest would the proposed new
constituency be?

4.2 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
establish a hierarchy of representativeness and openness within the proposed
new constituency?

5. Alternatives

5.1  Are  there alternative  means  of  fulfilling the  stated need  besides
recognition of a new constituency?

5.2 Are there other  places within the ICANN structure where this need could
be fulfilled?

6. Organisation on a global scale

6.1 What  steps have the  proponents of the proposed  new constituency taken
to organise the proposed new constituency?

6.2 Have  the proponents  of the proposed new  constituency demonstrated the
capability  to  command the  financial  and  human resources  required by  a
constituency?

7. Support within the DNSO

7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
seek support from existing constituencies?

8. Impact assessment

8.1 What  would be the impact  of the proposed new  constituency on existing
constituencies?

8.2  What  would be  the  impact of  the  proposed new  constituency on  the
finances and administration of the DNSO?

8.3  What would  be the impact  of the  proposed new constituency  on policy
formation within the DNSO?
-------------------------------------------------
Information from:  © DNSO Names Council


DNSO Secretariat


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>