RE: [ga] DNSO Review Committee

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@netsol.com>]

It seems to me that one set of benchmarks that should be used in performing
the DNSO Review should be the ICANN Bylaws.  They in fact provide some
direction for the DNSO, including the Names Council.  The following exerpts
come from an informational paper presented to the Names Council in Yokohama.
They summarize the direction provided in the Bylaws and give some commentary
in that regard.

"According to the ICANN Bylaws, Article VI-B:
·	The purpose of the DNSO is to "advise the Board with respect to
policy issues relating to the Domain Name System."  [Section 1 (a)]
·	To fulfill this purpose, the Names Council (NC) is given the
responsibility for managing the consensus-building process of the DNSO
[Section 2 (a)].
As has been clearly demonstrated in the first year of the DNSO's history,
the task of managing the consensus-building process is extremely
challenging.

The Bylaws provide some specific direction with regard to how the NC should
manage the consensus-building process.  Section 2 (b) reads:
·	"It shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry
out that responsibility, including the designation of such research or
drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA as it
determines are appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO."
·	It is "responsible for ensuring that all responsible views have been
heard and considered prior to a decision by the NC." 

Section 2 (c) and (d) provide some detail with regard to the process that
should be followed:
1.	"Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider
domain name policies or recommendations."
2.	"If the NC undertakes consideration of a domain name topic, or if a
Constituency so requests, the NC shall designate one or more research or
drafting committees, or working groups of the GA, as appropriate to evaluate
the topic, and shall set a time frame for the report of such committee or
working group."
3.	"Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a
body, the NC may accept the report or recommendation for submission to the
Constituencies for comment and consultation, or return the report or
recommendation to the body from which it originated for further work."
4.	"After the report or recommendation is submitted to the
Constituencies and the comment period for the Constituencies has expired,
the NC shall evaluate the comments to determine whether there is a basis for
a consensus recommendation to the Board."
5.	"If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC determine that the
DNSO process has produced a community consensus, that consensus position
shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus recommendation, along with
all materials or other information that could reasonably be relevant to the
Board's review of that determination, including (but not limited to) the
dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the NC."
6.	"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, along with statements of majority and minority views, and
any separate or dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the NC."
7.	"Any proposed recommendation that is not supported by an affirmative
vote of one-half (1/2) of the members of the NC may be returned to the body
from which it originated, or may be assigned to a new body, for further
work. In such a case, the NC may report to the board the lack of a consensus
and the steps, if any, it plans to take from this point forward with respect
to this particular recommendation."
8.	"The NC is responsible for ensuring that the Board is informed of
any significant implementation or operational concerns expressed by any
responsible party."

Managing the above process for just one proposed domain policy or
recommendation requires considerable time and resources.  Managing it for
multiple proposed policies and/or recommendations simultaneously demands
even more time and resources.

In my opinion, an overriding objective of the DNSO should be to minimize the
amount of subjectivity and 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.

Chuck Gomes 

--
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