[ga] new constituencies

[J J Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

Since the process is now still open, we might as well help the special NC
task force in their thinking:


**********************************

DRAFT Outline for the DNSO Review

Introduction:

The DNSO is a Supporting Organization of ICANN, 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 reer proposals for substantive policies
regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial consideration and
recommendation to the Board. Subject to the provision of Article III,
Section 3, of the ICANN bylaws, the ICANN Board shall...[include section
under 'responsibilities and powers' of the DNSO bylaws].

Background:

The DNSO was formed in the Spring [February] of 1999 as one of the three
SO's under ICANN. It was formed following extensive global discussions and
communications, with the intent of trying to establish an SO that
represented the stakeholders in ICANN necessary for developing and
recommending substantive polices regarding the domain name system. Following
its establishment, it had functioned. As required under the ICANN bylaws,
the DNSO review is necessary to determine whether it is fulfilling it's
commitments, and whether it needs to be adjusted in order to better fulfill
them.

Review:

The review will require assessing which questions the NC needs to ask in
connection for overall review, including what is the role of the
constituencies, what problems exist, and what should the dnso try to be
accomplishing and is it meeting those needs. In order to proceed with this,
we will outline below and ask questions, on the responsibilities of the
organization, and the structure. The review will conclude with
recommendations, if any, on how to better improve the fulfillment of the
responsibilities of the organization, and whether any improvements require
structural changes.

DNSO Responsibilities:

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 reer
proposals for substantive policies regarding the domain name system to the
DNSO for initial consideration and recommendation to the Board.

Identify what responsibilities the DNSO has had to date consistent with its
mandate [TO BE ADDED]

* To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled these responsibilities?

* Where was the DNSO lacking in its capacity?

* Does the DNSO performance require improvement, and if so, how?

Structure:

The current structure of the DNSO is as follows: The NC, Seven
constituencies, and the General Assembly [TO BE ADDED] provide short
overview of these structures].

* Does the existing structure work?

* If not, can it be improved?

* Are the constituencies a correct division? Should there be different
divisions in the DNSO? E.g., users v. providers?

* Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness of the
DNSO and NC?

* Are the constituencies adequately representing the intended group?

* The GA has improve subsequently to the elections of the chairs -- what
should be the future responsibilities of the GA be?


Review  [Additional points to be added]:

* To improve the effectiveness of the DNSO, should the structure change? if
so, how?

* Have the DNSO recommendations furthered the ICANN work consistent with the
provision in Article III, Section 3, oftheICANN Bylaws, that the ICANN Board
shall accept recommendations of the DNSO if the Board finds that the
recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best interest
of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with the Articles and Bylaws; (3) was
arrived at through fair and open processes (including participation by
representatives of other Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4)
isn't reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization.

*******
My first reaction: the DNSO was supposed to be a representative structure of
all stakeholders in the DNS. Balancing  "ëffectiveness" for some special
interests against "representativeness" of the body itself is not a proper
exercise.
"Effective" has different meanings for different interests.


--
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